Re: Future of gccbug

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Nov 7, 2003, at 6:14 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
> > > It would help if all the messages sent out in response to an update 
> > > of
> > > a single bug had the same message-id so that duplicate message 
> > > filters
> > > would work on them.
> ...
> > Can someone please send me one of each where this happens so i can see
> > the message ids?
>
> Will send an example under separate cover.  Note that the text of the
> two messages is not identical -- one of them has a "You are receiving
> this message because:" junk footer and the other doesn't.

That's okay, it should still have the same message-id.
I have a feeling something is changing the message-id on us when it 
sends it to a remote server, but not when it sends it locally to the 
list delivery process.

> > > The From: munging causes BBDB to go nuts.
> >
> > Okay, do me a favor then, since i'm not all that clear on this.
> > Please rearrange/rewrite the following so that it's how it should be:
> >
> >
> > Return-Path: <dberlin@gcc.gnu.org>
> > From: "%changer%" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
> > To: %to%
> > In-Reply-To: %inreplyto%
> > References: %inreplyto%
> > Message-ID: %msgid%
> > Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: [Bug %component%/%bugid%] %neworchanged%%summary%
> > X-Bugzilla-Reason: %reasonsheader%
>
> Sorry, I can't, because (a) I don't know what all the %escape%s are
> (in particular, I want the one that has the original From: address and
> I don't know what that is)

That would be %changer%

> and (b) I don't properly understand the
> MCT/MFT spec.  I'd have to stare at it a lot longer and I don't have
> time now.

I'm unfortunately not clear on it either, but the offer applies to 
anyone, not just you.
>