Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:43:40 -0600
- From: David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:39:30 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:42:32 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the
> > > > > "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The
> > > > > second problem is - which one do you wish to keep? The third problem
> > > > > (related to the second one) is the order in which the messages arrive.
> > > > > Is it the mailing list reply first or the Cc:?
> > > >
> > > > Granted, you lose all the information in the header about how the
> > > > reply journeyed from Fred to bendel.debian.org and on to yourself
> > > > when the list copy arrives after the direct one but, unless you're
> > > > taking a special interest in how long messages are taking, what
> > > > exactly have you lost?
> > >
> > > The original mail has been lost. As far as I am concerned. the
> > > original which was sent to me is the only thing of importance to
> > > me. If that isn't important to you and you are satisfied with a
> > > simulacrum, that's ok by me.
> > >
> > > (The "unless you're taking a special interest in how long messages
> > > are taking" is an indication of how important a user's mail is seen
> > > to be. If the US Postal Service processed one's mail in such a
> > > subjective manner there might be a complaint or two).
> > Again, I'm left to think of an analogy in Real Life.
> > When some companies and institutions send an important letter, they
> > will often send one by normal post and one by Recorded Delivery.
> > The first gets delivered as normal and can be picked up on return
> > from work, whereas the other may be delayed (eg, P739 card in the UK).
> > When both eventually get delivered, they can be seen to be identical,
> > though the markings on the envelopes will differ. One is not a
> > simulacrum of the other; it's a clone, a duplicate.
> To my knowledge, Royal mail do not destroy one of the mails because you
> have received one already. Some ISPs are adept at it.
You seem determined to miss the point. The sender sends two identical
copies. Royal Mail delivers both of the letters. The addressee can bin
one because the paper bears the same ink marks as the other one.
> (The information conveyed by both letters is not the same. You only have
> to look at them side-by-side to see that. They are not clones. Of course,
> if you want to thow away the envelopes ..... But now you do not have the
> original letters).
In my analogy, the company sent two identical copies. They are
identical by definition, printed with copies=3 (one for them to file).
Similarly, the bodies of the two emails are identical. They are cloned
when they're sent by exim. Look, here is the cloning in action
(mangled to protect the innocent):
2018-02-05 13:13:18 1eimCc-0000EV-Nv <= david@alum U=david P=local S=1956 id=20180205191318.GC32350@alum
2018-02-05 13:13:21 1eimCc-0000EV-Nv => debian-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost H=smtp.lionunicorn.co.uk [220.127.116.11] X=TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128 DN="OU=Domain Control Validated,OU=PositiveSSL Wildcard,CN=*.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk"
2018-02-05 13:13:21 1eimCc-0000EV-Nv -> foo@bar R=smarthost T=remote_smtp_smarthost H=smtp.lionunicorn.co.uk [18.104.22.168] X=TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128 DN="OU=Domain Control Validated,OU=PositiveSSL Wildcard,CN=*.unlimitedwebhosting.co.uk"
2018-02-05 13:13:21 1eimCc-0000EV-Nv Completed