On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 03:38:13PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 15:39 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 01:02:47AM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 10:41:04AM +0700, Ross Golder wrote: > > [..] > > > > I can't imagine anything will go awry, but I'm copying in the bugzilla > > > > dudes so they know who to harass if anything stops working around about > > > > now. In fact, if they can confirm/deny whether the rest of the virtual > > > > addresses are still relevant or not, and if not I'll remove them: > > > > > > > > -- begin cut'n'paste -- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the email address used for bugreports > > > created by bug-buddy where the reporter doesn't have a > > > bugzilla.gnome.org account. It shouldn't get any mail. > > > > > > I'll change this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], probably tomorrow. > > > > Done. This can be removed from the configuration or sent to /dev/null. > > Isn't it better to use a valid black hole email message than an > invalid address?
I like the invalid domain because it is more obvious that it is invalid and bugzilla specific. When we used [EMAIL PROTECTED] people still tried to email those (every so often). That would hopefully never happen with [EMAIL PROTECTED], but it still is more consistent with the dummy accounts. Furthermore unknown@ is still used as the default assignee for the general product. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
