On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-01-24 02:00:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 17:07 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > Or an option in reportbug to do so, turned on by default. It could put
> > > an X- header in the email.
> > >
> > > That way users of
On 2015-01-24 02:00:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 17:07 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Or an option in reportbug to do so, turned on by default. It could put
> > an X- header in the email.
> >
> > That way users of reportbug can choose to be 'spammed' or not.
>
> This
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 17:07 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 01:03:52AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm going to put together a bit more firm of
On 2015-01-22 12:41:05 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 21:10 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > So anyway, nn-subscribe can be used to spam confirmation messages
> > currently, and general mail to the bts from an unknown address will
> > end up doing the same, but it's basic
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Russell Stuart wrote:
> The reason is all that happens now is you get one unwanted email and
> that is the end of it. In particular the attacker can't force you do to
> something to prevent the bugs.debian.org from sending further unwanted
> emails. If you get rid
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 21:10 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> So anyway, nn-subscribe can be used to spam confirmation messages
> currently, and general mail to the bts from an unknown address will
> end up doing the same, but it's basically a non-issue because it's a
> rather uninteresting thing
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Russell Stuart wrote:
> In other words the current system contains robust defences against such
> an attack. All I (and I presume Ben) are saying is removing those
> defences is not a good idea, given it's easy enough to design a system
> that keeps them. Currentl
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 01:03:52AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > I'm going to put together a bit more firm of a proposal in the next few
> > > weeks, but I think that basically e
On 20/01/15 16:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It would be great if the maintainer could *always* receive the mail
> when mailing to nnn@, and not just under obscure conditions. For
> instance, I've been told by some maintainers that if the bug is
> reassigned, the maintainer doesn't receive the mail!
On 2015-01-18 16:06:32 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm going to put together a bit more firm of a proposal in the next few
> weeks, but I think that basically everything but nnn-done@ and
> nnn-submitter@ should be no different from mailing nnn@, and until I
> allow submitters to opt out of e-mai
Russell Stuart writes ("Re: Who gets an email when with bugreports [was: Re:
Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package]"):
>
> 701234-subyes-8aba1368a9ac33362ea1f68c28446c15-65bf3bd3886fb8abfe59d40709c84...@bugs.debian.org
>
> I presume this "invite" add
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Wookey wrote:
> Ah yes, and that list has no option for 'maintainer and submitter' or
> 'everybody who replied to this bug' which both seem like things one
That does not help either. By default, people just “reply to list”,
“reply to all” or just “reply”. Too much stuff ends
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> The only seems to suggest this is a minority. I would however argue that
> the majority of other bug tracking systems do subscribe you to bugs you
> interact with.
Such as FusionForge, which runs Debian’s very own Alioth.
I’ve been bitten by this in
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:31:20AM +, Wookey wrote:
> Am I right that the
> only way to expliticly mail the submitter and the maintainer is to
> look the submitter's mail up in the initial bugrep and just CC it,
> whilst replying to bugnum@b.d.o, which will automatically include the
> maintaine
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 16:57 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Isn't the spam vector already wide open for
> nn-subscr...@bugs.debian.org, which isn't much (ab)used today?
>
> I fail to see how any of the discussed changes open an abuse vector
> that doesn't already exist.
OK, so let me help you
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Russell Stuart wrote:
>> But isn't subscribing participants "natural"?
>
> It may be natural, but IMO you are underestimating the spam vector
> problem.
>
> Debian's bug submission mechanism does not try to verify you control the
> email address you are submitting f
On 19/01/15 01:14, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
>> But isn't subscribing participants "natural"? Posting to a bug
>> report means participation and thus you'd get the follow-ups. Why
>> would you post to a bug report if you aren't interested in what
Tomas Pospisek writes:
> But isn't subscribing participants "natural"? Posting to a bug report
> means participation and thus you'd get the follow-ups. Why would you
> post to a bug report if you aren't interested in what happens with it,
> how things proceed/evolve?
Most other bug systems requi
Firstly, I should say: I'm sorry that I got the design of this wrong
when I set up the BTS. I hadn't appreciated at the time that bug
reports are actually (amongst other things) ad-hoc mailing lists.
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Who gets an email when with bugreports [was: Re:
Unauth
On 2015-01-19 11:31, Wookey wrote:
I recall looking at that list for the 'maintainer and submitter'
option, and being disappointed not to find one. Am I right that the
only way to expliticly mail the submitter and the maintainer is to
look the submitter's mail up in the initial bugrep and just CC
+++ Adam D. Barratt [2015-01-19 11:01 +]:
> On 2015-01-19 10:47, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:26:41AM +, Wookey wrote:
> >>Can someone remind me what the current rules are (or where it's
> >>written down). I know it doesn't work the way I expect it ought
> >>to, but I
On 2015-01-19 10:47, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:26:41AM +, Wookey wrote:
Can someone remind me what the current rules are (or where it's
written down). I know it doesn't work the way I expect it ought to,
but
I forget/never-understood exactly how it does work.
Do mai
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 09:26:41AM +, Wookey wrote:
> Can someone remind me what the current rules are (or where it's
> written down). I know it doesn't work the way I expect it ought to, but
> I forget/never-understood exactly how it does work.
>
> Do maintainers always get the initial mail t
On 2015-01-19 10:03, Eugene Zhukov wrote:
Through my experience this is not the case - even the maintainer
doesn't get mail about a bug.
For example I'm listed as a maintainer of epubcheck package,
No, you're not:
Maintainer: Debian XML/SGML Group
You're listed in the "Uploaders" field, wh
Hi,
Am Montag, den 19.01.2015, 19:41 +1000 schrieb Russell Stuart:
> Debian's bug submission mechanism does not try to verify you control the
> email address you are submitting from.
At least trac allows you to put other people’s email address in the CC
header, at least in some configurations.
>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Paul Wise [2015-01-19 17:14 +0800]:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>
>> > I can understand your point of view and I think also the why but isn't
>> > that position the exception from the rule? That is shouldn't the p
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 10:03 +0100, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 19.01.2015 um 02:03 schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> > No, this would turn the BTS into a (worse) spam vector.
> >
> > But the acknowledgement mail should tell you how to subscribe, if you
> > aren't already subscribed.
>
> But isn't subscribi
+++ Paul Wise [2015-01-19 17:14 +0800]:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
> > I can understand your point of view and I think also the why but isn't
> > that position the exception from the rule? That is shouldn't the process
> > be optimized for the "common" case and allo
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:14:18PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> People often file bugs for issues they discover in software they don't
> use or care about, getting followups to those isn't necessary.
Uh? What's your rationale for this, and in particular for the "often"
part?
Surely the typical use c
On Mon, January 19, 2015 10:14, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
>> But isn't subscribing participants "natural"? Posting to a bug report
>> means participation and thus you'd get the follow-ups. Why would you
>> post to a bug report if you aren't interest
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> But isn't subscribing participants "natural"? Posting to a bug report
> means participation and thus you'd get the follow-ups. Why would you
> post to a bug report if you aren't interested in what happens with it,
> how things proceed/evolve
Am 19.01.2015 um 02:03 schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to put together a bit more firm of a proposal in the next few
>>> weeks, but I think that basically everything but nnn-done@
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> how about the other way round then:
>
> - by default everything stays as it is and there is no auto subscription
> - by sending an email to the bts I can activate that I'm automatically
>subscribed to all bugs I submitted or contribu
Hi,
Quoting Ben Hutchings (2015-01-19 02:03:52)
> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I'd very much appreciate the ability to not be auto-subscribed to
> > every bug so please do implement the opt-out thing, preferably before
> > this change is rolled out.
> >
> > Personally,
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > I'm going to put together a bit more firm of a proposal in the next few
> > weeks, but I think that basically everything but nnn-done@ and
> > nnn-submitter@ should be no different fro
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm going to put together a bit more firm of a proposal in the next few
> weeks, but I think that basically everything but nnn-done@ and
> nnn-submitter@ should be no different from mailing nnn@, and until I
> allow submitters to opt out of e
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, jnqnfe wrote:
> I think that Ideally the BTS should offer per-bug subscription
> functionality, like bugzilla.
We do, but because it's not directly integrated into the BTS, the BTS is
unaware of who is subscribed.
Actually fixing this is on the gigantic todo list.
--
Don Ar
I think that Ideally the BTS should offer per-bug subscription
functionality, like bugzilla. Submitter and maintainer would be added to
the list automatically upon submission of the bug report; contributors
to the bug report could also be added automatically upon submission of
their message. Anyone
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> I guess, changing semantics of bugnumber[-something]@b.d.o yet again
> will not be considered.
Actually, I think that the way we handle nnn-* is pretty much wrong, but
it's wrong for mainly historical and manpower reasons.
I'm going to put together a b
Am 18.01.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 01:07:35PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:09:34AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 04:48:33PM +, Steven Capper wrote:
>>
we have had no discussion
over #773359; your
40 matches
Mail list logo
