Hellow Andy, Andy Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 12:25:58AM +0900, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: >> So, i think the BTS system should go in this direction. Replacing the >> RFC2822.From header for DMARC doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't >> want to directly influence the BTS maintainer. They're incredibly busy >> in real life. I'm worried my comments might be a burden, so i'll just >> vent here on the debian-user forum. Ah, yes, this is off-topic. > > It seems a rather bizarre choice to direct your comment about an almost > 12 year old discussion about the workings of the Debian bug tracker to > this mailing list, where the people who actually work on the BTS won't > see it. Almost no one here will care about or understand the issue, so there > won't even be a useful debate. > > If you had something constructive to add it would really be best said on > the bug itself, especially as I see the last comments on that big were > almost a year ago from one of the BTS developers who seems to be saying > they are working on rewriting the From address, i.e. not what you want. Thank you for good advice! > So, what did you want to happen byu posting this here? I am an email forwarder (for myself). Forwarders like to receive emails as close to their original state as possible, without any changes to the intermediate headers. In particular, manipulating the RFC2822.From header was incredibly frustrating. However, i do like additional headers added during email transmission, such as DKIM, ARC and X-Forwarded-To. And as i said at the beginning, i wrote this on the Debian forum because i hoped that my feelings would not be conveyed to the BTS maintainers. Anyway, i love the Debian Project. A lot! > Thanks, > Andy Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
