Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:43:44 +0200
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:06:18AM +0000, Mittelbach, Frank wrote:
> I'm sorry for the trouble with the gnats system it is unfortunately not
> the best possible interface. You actually managed to reach the bug
> database each time, what you didn't manage was to reach it in a way that
> your mail shows up on the web.
And that's the only think I can see. Because nothing was shown,
my conclusion was rather that the spam filter has sorted the
mails to /dev/null.
> Here are the rules (as far as I remember them - if mistaken, I'm sure
> Rainer will correct me)
> To answer a bug entry:
> - you send mail to [log in to unmask]
> - to avoid generating a new bug entry this way you need to use a subject
> line that contains <category>/<number> at the beginning (if think
> stuff like Re: etc is possible
> - you can have additional text in the subject and it doesn't have to
> match the original bug synopsis
> - if you do the above the entry will end up in the database but it will
> not show up on the web and it will be distributed internally but not
> back to the original poster (that's the way gants works)
It would be nice, if the gnats system could send a confirmation
that the entry has at least entered the database.
> - if you want it to appear on the web you need to explicitly include the
> original poster on CC or To:
That's the point I have missed. But I have found a successful
counter example: babel/3543. Here my reply ended up in the web
despite having me in the CC or To field. The CC field
was empty and the To field contained latex-bugs and latex-team.
> And that actually is the catch: with so much misuse and email adress
> harvesting the email addresses are no longer shown and so there isn't
> really any way for you to do that
Except I know the originator and its possible addresses.
In this case I would have known.
Otherwise could latex-team as address be used to show it on
> Not sure what the best way is, perhaps in a case like this, open a new bug
> report and crossref though that isn't really a good solution either. What
> I can do is to take your reply and add it again with cc to the originator
> s othat he/she gets it and it shows on the web (not from here but tonight)