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, 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
On 19 January 2015 at 08:25, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Steven,
Hi Mathieu,
>
> While being in terrible position to tell you what you should or should
> not do, I'd still suggest you to read:
>
> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
> https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/
>
Thanks, I will gi
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
orised activity surrounding tbb package]"):
> Personally, I think subscriptions should work like this:
>
> The default should be to auto-subscribe submitters and contributors to bugs.
Yes for submitters.
No for contributors; that wouldn't be very opt-in. Instead,
contrib
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
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
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Steven,
>
> While being in terrible position to tell you what you should or should
> not do, I'd still suggest you to read:
>
> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
> https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/
Just to be clear: I was sugge
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,
Steven,
While being in terrible position to tell you what you should or should
not do, I'd still suggest you to read:
https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Steven Capper wrote:
> Mathieu,
> I'm writing to express my incre
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 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
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 response is effectively placing words in my mou
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 response is effectively placing words in my mouth
> > and I will not tolerate that. To confound matters, I wasn't eve
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 04:48:33PM +, Steven Capper wrote:
> Mathieu,
> I'm writing to express my increasing frustration at activities you've
> instigated surrounding the tbb package that I maintain.
>
> Over the Christmas period a bug report was raised:
> #773359 "package tbb_4.2~20140122-4 F
Mathieu,
I'm writing to express my increasing frustration at activities you've
instigated surrounding the tbb package that I maintain.
Over the Christmas period a bug report was raised:
#773359 "package tbb_4.2~20140122-4 FTBFS on mips and mipsel"
and answered by yourself:
"While I do understand
42 matches
Mail list logo
