Hi Kevin, I agree, I'm writing a new --envelope-from cli option to allow to specify the Envelope From header; Francesco, from the new version of reportbug onward, you'll have to use that option to select the envelope from (reverting the change in #614880)
Sandro On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 22:48, Kevin Locke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/31/2011 2:08 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> I'm considering reverting the change you mentioned, but you have to be >> more convincing than before. > > Sure, that's fair. For clarity, I would prefer adding an additional > configuration parameter rather than requiring the envelope sender to be > either the from address or system default, because I think the submitter > of bug #614880 has a reasonable use case. But making that change > requires supporting arguments as well, so they are provided below. > > Note that in the cases below the alternative to setting an envelope > sender configuration option would be configuring reportbug to use SMTP. > I contend that this raises the barrier to entry over using a local MTA > when one exists because the user must deal with ISP or local outgoing > port blocking, figuring out appropriate SMTP options (e.g. GMail's > non-standard configuration requirements), and configuring them for yet > another program on all systems used. If you disagree, the scenarios > below will likely not be persuasive. > > The arguments also depend on the extent to which ease/convenience is a > goal of reportbug. Feel free to consider them with that in mind. > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 20:58, Kevin Locke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I contend that it is not reasonable to expect users to have local MTAs >>> configured to canonicalize/masquerade local user account names to public >>> addresses >> >> could you please elaborate why it's not reasonable? > > Sure, here are some use cases that I contend reportbug should support: > * Reporting bugs from systems on which the reporting user does not have > administrative access to configure the MTA or the address mapping for > their user account. > * Users who either lack the knowledge to configure their MTA, prefer > not to make changes to a working system, or prefer not to spend the time > required to determine and implement the correct configuration to satisfy > reportbug. > >>> and that there are legitimate cases where users will want to >>> report bugs with addresses different than whatever their default >>> envelope sender is. >> >> examples? > > Here are a few example cases that I would consider reasonable: > * Suppose the user has separate professional and personal email > accounts. Their MTA is set to send as one of these accounts but they > may want to report the bug using either their personal account (if the > bug is not work-related) or professional account (if it affects systems > they maintain professionally). > * To ease the sorting of messages, the user would prefer to report bugs > using <[email protected]> to automatically tag responses "bts" but > would not want to set their address for all mail as > <[email protected]> or to change the address each time reportbug is used. > * The user is logged into a system as a contractor and the configured > email for their system is either temporary (e.g. for the duration of the > contract) or an email they prefer not to use for the purpose of > submitting bugs. > >>> Also that the From header should match the envelope >>> sender, where possible. >> >> references to back up this assertion? > > This was poorly phrased on my part. It's not that all mail should have > the From header == envelope sender, but that when the envelope sender is > not set to the From address it opens the door for problems on some > systems. If the MTA is not configured with a valid email address for > the user the envelope sender will be sent as a locally-qualified address > (e.g. user@hostname) which will be rejected by the BTS.[1] > > Hopefully that explains my thoughts somewhat. If you would like a > patch, let me know. > > Cheers, > Kevin > > > 1. If a masquerade domain is set (so mail will be sent as > user@masquerade) in which the username does not receive mail it may be > rejected by sender verification depending on how the BTS is configured. > I can test this if you like. > -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi _______________________________________________ Reportbug-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reportbug-maint
