On Sat, 15 Oct 2016, Ben Finney wrote: > 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>.
I think for -done it would work, but for -quiet, -maintonly, or -submitter, it doesn't really make sense. I'm also concerned about the ordering of the control operations for -done messages, but I think applying the control operations first, and then the -done operation could work. [This is actually exactly the opposite of how submit@ and nnn@ works, which is why it isn't trivial to implement.] -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com [I]t's true that some of the most terrible things in the world are done by people who think, genuinely think, that they're doing it for the best, especially if there is some god involved. -- Terry Pratchett _Snuff_ p185
