Are there any drawbacks to this idea?
Is there any group (who gets Whimsy emails) we should specifically ask
about formatting or the like?
Some(?) scripts already have a marker for root@ mail filters somehow:
mail.header['X-For-Root'] = 'yes'
--
- Shane
Fiddler of Bits Sometimes
The Apache Software Foundation
On 2017/06/10 13:57:10, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: >
sebb wrote on 6/10/17 9:48 AM:
> > It might be useful to allow the user to provide some text to go with
> > the emails that are sent when updating rosters.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
>
> More to the point, we should define some common patterns for all the
> generated emails from Whimsy, to make both debugging, spam prevention,
> and list management easier.
>
> I'd propose that every whimsy script emitting human-read mail use:
>
> mail.header['X-Mailer'] = 'whimsy/www/path/scriptname(0.0)'
>
> Which allows for any semantic versioning that scriptname wants to use.
> Only needed if the script changes the output data in the mail in a
> significant way.
>
>
> mail.subject = "[TAG] #{subject}"
>
> Where we should define a set of TAGs that are descriptive of the kinds
> of organizational operations that committers are doing when using
> mail-generating whimsy tools.
>
> Thus, all the "x added to y pmc" mails should all be... [LDAP]?
> [CTTEUPDATE]? Something else? I.e. a single TAG word that describes the
> kind of organizational data change the user was doing when the script
> sent the notice mail.
>
> Make sense?
>
> For now, we should just agree to do this in each script, and then see
> what bits should actually become options/defaults in the ASF::Mail lib.
>
> - Shane
>
