On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:23:08PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
(This is the same reason I generally disagree with Eric Wong about
preserving SMTP as the primary transmission protocol -- I've heard lots of
complaints both from kernel developers and especially from people trying to
contribute to CAF about corporate policies actually making it impossible to
submit patches -- and no, using a different mail server is not a possibility
for them because it can be a firing offense under their IT AUP rules.)
I'm not opposed to a webmail interface tailored to kernel hacking
which does stuff like checkpatch.pl and get_maintainer.pl before
sending (similar to your patchwork proposal and
gitgadgetgadget). That would get around security appliances
but SMTP would still be used in the background.
Or offer full-blown HTTPS webmail + IMAP + SMTP access like any
other webmail provider + checkpatch + get_maintainer helpers.
Well, this is the bit where I say that it may not be allowed by
corporate rules. I see this all the time in CAF/Android world where
companies *require* that all email goes through their SMTP server so
that it can be properly logged (often for legal reasons). And it is
often equally required that any code submissions come from
per...@corporate.com and not per...@free-email-provider.com for
License/CLA reasons, so setting up a webmail server is not a solution
either.
This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless trying
to pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by
lawyers. So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation:
1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface
(but still in a way that From: is their corporate ID)
2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of
always being secondary to SMTP
-K
_______________________________________________
Patchwork mailing list
Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
