On 18-Aug-2012, Don Armstrong wrote: > Control: only works for nnn@b.d.o and submit@b.d.o currently. Other > things may be supported in the future, but most of those other > messages have side effects.
Could you expand on that? I don't know what would be the down-side of having debbugs recognise the pseudoheader in a message such as <URL:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761980#24>. The message was sent to <761980-d...@bugs.debian.org> with an explanation of why it is being closed, and also a pseudoheader with some instructions to the BTS. What would be wrong with having the BTS recognise that pseudoheader and obey it? That one did not take effect, until I also sent it to the bug report <761...@bugs.debian.org>. Neither that nor <sub...@bugs.debian.org> seem appropriate for a message which is not intended to have anything but an administrative effect, so <761980-d...@bugs.debian.org> seems the correct place to send that message. -- \ “Our nylons cost more than common, but you'll find that they | `\ are best in the long run.” —shop, Tokyo | _o__) | Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
