A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs

[Daniel Berlin]

On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 10:23  PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:02:36PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2003, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> A few suggestions for the mail to gcc-bugs, taking this recent
>>> message as an example:
>>>
>>>> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* 
>>>> gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>>>
>>> Can't this be automated?
>> Actually, it can't, AFAIK.
>
> Well, there's already a Reply-To: header set...
>>
Yes, but i can't automate people doing the right thing.
I can, however, remove the banner, and already planned on it.

>>>
>>>> ------- Additional Comments From edmar@motorola.com  2003-05-22 
>>>> 17:30 -------
>>>> Created an attachment (id=4054)
>>>>  --> 
>>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4054&action=view)
>>>> Preprocessed file that caused the ICE
>>>
>>> Although I really like not getting any useless 500kB+ emails
>>> through gcc-bugs anymore, if an attachment is short, can it
>>> be sent in the actual email please?
>>
>> Define short.
>
> Let's just pick a reasonable limit - how about 20K?

Actually, let's not do it.
It's not easy to do, it's cpu consuming (attachments are stored 
compressed in the db, so i'd have to uncompress the attachments every 
time we go to send out mail, just to see if they are the right size) 
first, and second, it's a security risk (auto-distribute hacks by 
posting them as an attachment).