<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Bugzilla (Mutt Next Generation)



Re: Alain Bench in <20050129112435.GB8765@xxxxxxx>
>     Basic and single whitelisting is not efficient IMHO. I remember
> receiving spam by *you*, and recently received (real) bounces from
> trithemius, for viruses I sent.

I had hoped that this case would be not so common.

> > * I can setup a debbugs BTS with the above.
> > * Or we use Werner's bugzilla.
> > Votes/comments on that? (I'm voting for debbugs+whitelisting.)
> 
>     Debbugs has only 2 problems: Spam sensibility, and ugly
> encapsulation of mails to "-done" (happily circumventable by "close"
> control directive).

I played around with debbugs during the last days. The current package
is several years old, and noone of the developers seems to be inclined
to pack CVS head into a new one. I don't want to have to pick single
patches from the BTS there. Furthermore, the built-in spam processing
is only available in CVS head, but broke with recent Spamassassin
versions.

The bottom line is that I suggest accepting Werner's offer to use his
bugzilla setup.

Werner, Thomas: please tell me what kind of help you could use in the
transition.

Christoph
-- 
cb@xxxxxxxx | http://www.df7cb.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature