On 18-Aug-2012, Don Armstrong wrote:

> Control: only works for nnn@b.d.o and submit@b.d.o currently. Other
> things may be supported in the future, but most of those other
> messages have side effects.

Could you expand on that? I don't know what would be the down-side of
having debbugs recognise the pseudoheader in a message such as

The message was sent to <761980-d...@bugs.debian.org> with an
explanation of why it is being closed, and also a pseudoheader with
some instructions to the BTS.

What would be wrong with having the BTS recognise that pseudoheader
and obey it?

That one did not take effect, until I also sent it to the bug report
<761...@bugs.debian.org>. Neither that nor <sub...@bugs.debian.org>
seem appropriate for a message which is not intended to have anything
but an administrative effect, so <761980-d...@bugs.debian.org> seems
the correct place to send that message.

 \        “Our nylons cost more than common, but you'll find that they |
  `\                           are best in the long run.” —shop, Tokyo |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to