Hi! > Arguably, such setup is spam: I is a bot that messes with the bugs but > is not accountable for its actions, since it is only a one-way > communication. Sure, I can then investigate the email and figure out > which non-email side channel might reach the true originator of the > bot activity, but I have no interest in that added burden laid on me. > > The concrete incidence is https://bugs.debian.org/972695#28 > > Am I missing something sensible here, or do others also see a problem > in this setup?
It is an intentional feature implemented with Salsa webhooks (https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/salsa-webhook) that notifies the bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=972695 that the maintainer merged https://salsa.debian.org/apache-team/apache2/-/merge_requests/43. It used the headers: From: Yadd <nore...@salsa.debian.org> To: 972695-submit...@bugs.debian.org The From address is indeed generic. It looks that there was an attempt to use real From addresses in https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/salsa-webhook/-/commit/7c77c31af01a3f8f964de7b2a45ebd539b37a3b9 6 years ago but maybe the webhook payload does not have it? I wonder also if the To-addresses are ideal I participated in the bug but I didn't get any email. Only you got it as the submitter. We could perhaps argue that the notification wasn't "spammy enough", because the participants didn't get the original notification nor your reply now. Your reply had: To: 972695-qu...@bugs.debian.org, 972695-submit...@bugs.debian.org, Yadd <nore...@salsa.debian.org> I am wondering did you add this 972695-qu...@bugs.debian.org manually or was it in the Reply-To headers? In this case it would have been best for all participants to get your update. What comes to suggestions on the email contents, they should go into https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/salsa-webhook/-/blob/master/templates/close.erb. I don't maintain this script - you should open a MR to have the maintainers review and approve it. Thanks!
