launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Martin Pool <mbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Can I suggest this thread eventually turns into a LEP?

> Looking at bug 111147, I recall our thinking for the "Contact this user"
> feature.  In that case, the user is directly initiating the email almost as if
> they were doing so with a webmail application.  In that case, it made sense to
> use the author's email address in the From header, give them an opportunity to
> select from among their validated addresses, and warn them that this will show
> up in the message that the recipient receives.  I still think this is the
> right answer for this use case.

Agree, and in this kind of thing is contemplated by DKIM.  It would be
reasonable for a DKIM-aware MUA to say "warning, this message may not
actually be from bob@xxxxxxxxxxx".  gmail already does this in
restricted circumstances.  I think this is OK because it's true, there
is no strong proof that the message text really does originate from
the purported sender.  Users who are very averse to the possibility of
sending forged mail (and have strict advertised signing practices) can
simply refrain from using this feature, in a way that it's not
realistic for them to refrain from sending mail through bugs.

>
> For messages generated as a byproduct of some action taken on Launchpad,
> that's a different matter.  In those cases, the user is *not* taking a direct
> action to send the email and has no control over the From header.  I would
> argue that in those cases Launchpad is the author of the message and the From
> field should be from launchpad.net.  It makes the most sense to use the bug
> number in the localpart, e.g. 111147@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  But in that case,
> I'd argue against putting the commenter's name in the From field exactly
> because it will mess up address books.  I think having the commenter's name in
> the body of the message is enough to know what's going on.

Agree, the statement is basically "bug 111147 says that Jane Doe
changed me to confirmed/medium".

This also works better if you eventually want to batch up multiple
minor actions by multiple people.

This would also give us a consistent fix for the problems of the
reporter's name being absent on the first mail in a thread, or when
the bug is retargeted into your subscription.

-- 
Martin