[PATCH] notification: use Sender and From header to clarify comment and pull request mails

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On June 13, 2015 11:05:09 AM CEST, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>On 06/13/2015 08:41 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>
>On 06/13/2015 08:41 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> On June 12, 2015 11:41:30 PM CEST, Mads Kiilerich
><mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2015 09:09 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>> # User Cedric De Herdt <cedric.de_herdt at alcatel-lucent.com>
>>>> # Date 1434135934 -7200
>>>> #      Fri Jun 12 21:05:34 2015 +0200
>>>> # Node ID c9c5310da1771baed04e70fb45293b8d212e8bb9
>>>> # Parent  42feaacb78feecb2a07a3ca19db6cf7ace3fd4c1
>>>> notification: use Sender and From header to clarify comment and
>pull
>>> request mails
>>>> Current e-mails are sent from the Kallithea-configured e-mail
>>> address. The
>>>> subject line then needs to refer to the user to be useful.
>>>> Instead, use the author of comments and pull requests as 'From',
>and
>>> make
>>>> the Kallithea-configured address the 'Sender' in accordance with
>>> RFC5322.
>>>
>>> So this will not cause problems for domains using domain keys or
>other
>>> anti spam "authenticated sender" schemes?
>> I don't know for sure, but I do know that many other sites use the
>same principle of different from+sender.
>
>Many sites also use a "dead" address as header "from" but use the name 
>of the user it is sending en behalf of in the name part. (That might 
>however be to avoid leaking users' email addresses ...)

The construction 'on behalf of' is added by some mail clients precisely when From and Sender are different. 
We can discuss whether the e-mail address should be the user's one or that of the system, I'm not sure what is best.

>
>>> And: wouldn't it be more useful to have the first line of the actual
>>> comment in the mail subject instead of the first line of the PR
>>> description?
>> Maybe, but given your findings on threading with gmail, it would mean
>that comment mails for pull requests are no longer threaded together
>with the pull request creation mail, which made sense to me.
>
>It would have to be in the [] part.
>
>I'm however not sure I would like it. It was merely a question to make 
>sure the options have been explored.
>
>>
>>> (Somewhat related: I have had a request to put the branch name
>>> "earlier"
>>> in the subject line. This will go in the opposite direction. One
>thing
>>> that could help could be to hide the branch name if it is default
>(hg)
>>> or master (git).)
>> Our original patch had [repo#branch] in front of the subject. I'm
>open to changing that, what would your prefer as subjects?
>
>I don't know. I haven't really though about it yet. It can probably 
>follow later.
>
>> Main items from our side are the removal of the user from the subject
>
>Should the "automatic mail" footer also be changed when the user appear
>
>as "from" so the recipient actually _can_ respond to the mail? Or was 
>the footer so ambiguous that it still is correct?

I will check the exact text and adapt if needed. Replying is now actually possible but would result in private discussion rather than in the comment system. Using the user's name but the system's e-mail address could help here. I don't know if it's an actual problem...