From techtonik at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 18:32:10 2014 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 19:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] When the the proper HTTPS certificate was added? Message-ID: I see that https://bugs.python.org/ finally uses a valid HTTPS certificate. Unfortunately, this issue was prematurely closed by Martin, so no traces of that event are there - http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue527 - can anybody clarify when that happened and add this info to the ticket. I am banned from tracker, you know. -- anatoly t. From georg at python.org Sun Oct 5 18:56:39 2014 From: georg at python.org (Georg Brandl) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:56:39 +0200 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] When the the proper HTTPS certificate was added? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54317847.2070005@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2014 06:32 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > I see that https://bugs.python.org/ finally uses a valid HTTPS certificate. > Unfortunately, this issue was prematurely closed by Martin, so no traces of > that event are there - > http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue527 - can anybody clarify > when that happened and add this info to the ticket. I am banned from > tracker, you know. This was just recently discussed on infrastructure, see https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/infrastructure/2014-September/002458.html It doesn't particularly belong on the ticket, which asked to provide HTTPS access, which was done earlier this year. Georg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlQxeEcACgkQN9GcIYhpnLDqngCfQ22o62ae9WfxcndQR2epSNtv tgwAoJwwi7B30RegPXW04v5WSzMfrMdy =Zpxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From techtonik at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 20:44:56 2014 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:44:56 +0300 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] When the the proper HTTPS certificate was added? In-Reply-To: <54317847.2070005@python.org> References: <54317847.2070005@python.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/05/2014 06:32 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> I see that https://bugs.python.org/ finally uses a valid HTTPS certificate. >> Unfortunately, this issue was prematurely closed by Martin, so no traces of >> that event are there - >> http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue527 - can anybody clarify >> when that happened and add this info to the ticket. I am banned from >> tracker, you know. > > This was just recently discussed on infrastructure, see > https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/infrastructure/2014-September/002458.html I can't see - it is a private list. =/ > It doesn't particularly belong on the ticket, which asked to provide HTTPS > access, which was done earlier this year. HTTPS with a broken certificate is not a HTTPS access and browsers rightfully deny access to such sites. -- anatoly t. From techtonik at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 20:48:27 2014 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:48:27 +0300 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] When the the proper HTTPS certificate was added? In-Reply-To: References: <54317847.2070005@python.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 10/05/2014 06:32 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> I see that https://bugs.python.org/ finally uses a valid HTTPS certificate. >>> Unfortunately, this issue was prematurely closed by Martin, so no traces of >>> that event are there - >>> http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue527 - can anybody clarify >>> when that happened and add this info to the ticket. I am banned from >>> tracker, you know. >> >> This was just recently discussed on infrastructure, see >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/infrastructure/2014-September/002458.html > > I can't see - it is a private list. =/ > >> It doesn't particularly belong on the ticket, which asked to provide HTTPS >> access, which was done earlier this year. > > HTTPS with a broken certificate is not a HTTPS access and browsers rightfully > deny access to such sites. Just to clarify, ticket is about "secure access", using secure HTTPS scheme. It is not about access through HTTPS URL. -- anatoly t. From georg at python.org Sun Oct 5 22:25:38 2014 From: georg at python.org (Georg Brandl) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 22:25:38 +0200 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] When the the proper HTTPS certificate was added? In-Reply-To: References: <54317847.2070005@python.org>

Message-ID: <5431A942.4040206@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2014 08:48 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> On 10/05/2014 06:32 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>>> I see that https://bugs.python.org/ finally uses a valid HTTPS >>>> certificate. Unfortunately, this issue was prematurely closed by >>>> Martin, so no traces of that event are there - >>>> http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue527 - can anybody >>>> clarify when that happened and add this info to the ticket. I am >>>> banned from tracker, you know. >>> >>> This was just recently discussed on infrastructure, see >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/infrastructure/2014-September/002458.html >> >> >>> I can't see - it is a private list. =/ I was under the impression you've been posting on it. Apparently you got yourself banned. Georg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlQxqUIACgkQN9GcIYhpnLBNAgCgqar1Y85q09tmums35aBDCem/ m0oAoJsx4m/5zGpRf2htidviQ7Y7uGoN =pQ1g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From techtonik at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 12:43:12 2014 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 13:43:12 +0300 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] When the the proper HTTPS certificate was added? In-Reply-To: <5431A942.4040206@python.org> References: <54317847.2070005@python.org>

<5431A942.4040206@python.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/05/2014 08:48 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > >>>> On 10/05/2014 06:32 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>>>> I see that https://bugs.python.org/ finally uses a valid HTTPS >>>>> certificate. Unfortunately, this issue was prematurely closed by >>>>> Martin, so no traces of that event are there - >>>>> http://psf.upfronthosting.co.za/roundup/meta/issue527 - can anybody >>>>> clarify when that happened and add this info to the ticket. I am >>>>> banned from tracker, you know. >>>> >>>> This was just recently discussed on infrastructure, see >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/infrastructure/2014-September/002458.html >>> >>> >>>> > I can't see - it is a private list. =/ > > I was under the impression you've been posting on it. Apparently you got > yourself banned. I don't remember myself participating in private Python circles, but thanks for replying to public list. =) -- anatoly t. From roundup-admin at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Fri Oct 10 05:14:01 2014 From: roundup-admin at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Python tracker) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 03:14:01 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] Failed issue tracker submission Message-ID: <20141010031401.C29255642D@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> The node specified by the designator in the subject of your message ("0712") does not exist. Subject was: "[issue0712]" Mail Gateway Help ================= Incoming messages are examined for multiple parts: . In a multipart/mixed message or part, each subpart is extracted and examined. The text/plain subparts are assembled to form the textual body of the message, to be stored in the file associated with a "msg" class node. Any parts of other types are each stored in separate files and given "file" class nodes that are linked to the "msg" node. . In a multipart/alternative message or part, we look for a text/plain subpart and ignore the other parts. . A message/rfc822 is treated similar tomultipart/mixed (except for special handling of the first text part) if unpack_rfc822 is set in the mailgw config section. Summary ------- The "summary" property on message nodes is taken from the first non-quoting section in the message body. The message body is divided into sections by blank lines. Sections where the second and all subsequent lines begin with a ">" or "|" character are considered "quoting sections". The first line of the first non-quoting section becomes the summary of the message. Addresses --------- All of the addresses in the To: and Cc: headers of the incoming message are looked up among the user nodes, and the corresponding users are placed in the "recipients" property on the new "msg" node. The address in the From: header similarly determines the "author" property of the new "msg" node. The default handling for addresses that don't have corresponding users is to create new users with no passwords and a username equal to the address. (The web interface does not permit logins for users with no passwords.) If we prefer to reject mail from outside sources, we can simply register an auditor on the "user" class that prevents the creation of user nodes with no passwords. Actions ------- The subject line of the incoming message is examined to determine whether the message is an attempt to create a new item or to discuss an existing item. A designator enclosed in square brackets is sought as the first thing on the subject line (after skipping any "Fwd:" or "Re:" prefixes). If an item designator (class name and id number) is found there, the newly created "msg" node is added to the "messages" property for that item, and any new "file" nodes are added to the "files" property for the item. If just an item class name is found there, we attempt to create a new item of that class with its "messages" property initialized to contain the new "msg" node and its "files" property initialized to contain any new "file" nodes. Triggers -------- Both cases may trigger detectors (in the first case we are calling the set() method to add the message to the item's spool; in the second case we are calling the create() method to create a new node). If an auditor raises an exception, the original message is bounced back to the sender with the explanatory message given in the exception. -------------- next part -------------- Return-Path: X-Original-To: report at bugs.python.org Delivered-To: roundup+tracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Received: from mail-s66.mailgun.info (mail-s66.mailgun.info [184.173.153.194]) by psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B4456409 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 05:14:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=psf.io; q=dns/txt; s=pic; t=1412910840; h=Sender: Date: Message-Id: Subject: To: From: Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: Mime-Version; bh=PuJ5UDTNvFmlHB1gzazWno72gwvn/4DE/XOQPeyGtag=; b=W4aQpv6kgX0ITrv4ZKHlXeMa0rV0J3Io1LiBddpXxMBUFfeIjVVBN2yrogBNw2p7S30RF2UM 5LqC7THAxJJs624POhgGUBa/yrlhsduRt3iYMBBSm0dmW1iSZhLDjz5P47uUr7lohFmji1NE PBAhrbZhOVTiCdpAvmZcLiD6rqM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=psf.io; s=pic; q=dns; h=Mime-Version: Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding: From: To: Subject: Message-Id: Date: Sender; b=fJ1T03pzmFY+mTLf2OWnneGSldPnWMtNMxr6guYl4dx3zgT34kFyE2l7Eo6D2h9lh34VJM WxR49/s7PDkCuJdzYVvxDIZknPwbLfitOpYeF/mV+Hkbf/cWt6+1Ul4ZKjYTBBMNafEIMxEb mfujAAi5afCRcjBli6GxMEVUGoy1Q= Received: from hg.psf.io (hg.psf.io [23.253.158.192]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 54374ef6.7f84fc4c5210-in6; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 03:13:58 -0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 From: tracker-discuss at python.org To: report at bugs.python.org Subject: [issue0712] Message-Id: <20141010031358.58875.77123 at psf.io> X-Mailgun-Sid: WyIzZGMxOSIsICJyZXBvcnRAYnVncy5weXRob24ub3JnIiwgIjliMWM2Il0= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 03:14:00 +0000 Sender: tracker-discuss=python.org at psf.io TmV3IGNoYW5nZXNldCA5MzM2YjQ3MDU0NGIgYnkgUiBEYXZpZCBNdXJyYXkgaW4gYnJhbmNoICcy LjcnOgojMDcxMjogMnRvMyBoYXMgYSBuZXcgImFzc2VydHMiIGZpeGVyIHRoYXQgcmVwbGFjZXMg ZGVwcmVjYXRlZCBuYW1lcyBvZiB1bml0dGVzdCBtZXRob2RzLgpodHRwczovL2hnLnB5dGhvbi5v cmcvY3B5dGhvbi9yZXYvOTMzNmI0NzA1NDRiCg== From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Sun Oct 12 21:51:20 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Serhiy Storchaka) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:51:20 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails Message-ID: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> New submission from Serhiy Storchaka: Currently email messages sent by Rietveld have no any special mark which distinguish them from other messages. Sender address is substituted by address of an author, subject is arbitrary. It is impossible to write email filter for them. Many of Rietveld messages are failed in spam folder on Gmail, and this is very annoyed. It is very desirable to add some special mark to messages. Custom header (Sender, List-Id, User-Agent or like) or special prefix in the subject. Please, can something be done with this? ---------- messages: 2902 nosy: serhiy.storchaka priority: wish status: unread title: Add special mark to Rietvelds emails _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Sun Oct 12 22:27:08 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Georg Brandl) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 20:27:08 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1413145628.16.0.266896271653.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Georg Brandl added the comment: +1 ---------- nosy: +gbrandl status: unread -> chatting _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Sun Oct 12 22:33:57 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Eric Smith) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 20:33:57 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1413146037.48.0.365007905195.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Eric Smith added the comment: This would be great. For some reason, 90% of Rietveld messages end up caught by my spam filter provider. I'd prefer a fixed "From:" address. My spam filterer can easily add a whitelisted From: address, but not so some other header. It's a commercial product, so I don't have much influence over it. ---------- nosy: +eric.smith _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Mon Oct 13 03:11:26 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Stephen Turnbull) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:11:26 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413146037.48.0.365007905195.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <87tx38ojt1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Stephen Turnbull added the comment: Eric Smith writes: > This would be great. For some reason, 90% of Rietveld messages end > up caught by my spam filter provider. Do you (or any of the affected recipients) *in principle* *prefer* having the From field contain the responsible developer? If not, changing From to contain Reitveld is likely the best solution. > I'd prefer a fixed "From:" address. My spam filterer can easily add > a whitelisted From: address, but not so some other header. It's a > commercial product, so I don't have much influence over it. It's possible that the spam filters are either DMARC-conforming, in which case some "From:" addresses are at great risk, or simply give "spam points" to lack of a From-aligned DKIM signature. I suppose the relevant MTA does provide valid SPF and DKIM authentication for the Reitveld 'bot, but it cannot do so for the third-party developers (unless they happen to have mailboxes in the same domain as Reitveld). Given the relative ease of whitelisting From for many recipients and the tie of From to DMARC, I think your proposed change is the best idea. Personally I don't see a strong reason for having developers in the >From field. I slightly prefer having Reitveld as the From author, with a citation to the responsible developer in the message body. But that might just be me. :-) ---------- nosy: +stephen _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From stephen at xemacs.org Mon Oct 13 03:11:22 2014 From: stephen at xemacs.org (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:11:22 +0900 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413146037.48.0.365007905195.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> References: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> <1413146037.48.0.365007905195.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <87tx38ojt1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Eric Smith writes: > This would be great. For some reason, 90% of Rietveld messages end > up caught by my spam filter provider. Do you (or any of the affected recipients) *in principle* *prefer* having the From field contain the responsible developer? If not, changing From to contain Reitveld is likely the best solution. > I'd prefer a fixed "From:" address. My spam filterer can easily add > a whitelisted From: address, but not so some other header. It's a > commercial product, so I don't have much influence over it. It's possible that the spam filters are either DMARC-conforming, in which case some "From:" addresses are at great risk, or simply give "spam points" to lack of a From-aligned DKIM signature. I suppose the relevant MTA does provide valid SPF and DKIM authentication for the Reitveld 'bot, but it cannot do so for the third-party developers (unless they happen to have mailboxes in the same domain as Reitveld). Given the relative ease of whitelisting From for many recipients and the tie of From to DMARC, I think your proposed change is the best idea. Personally I don't see a strong reason for having developers in the >From field. I slightly prefer having Reitveld as the From author, with a citation to the responsible developer in the message body. But that might just be me. :-) From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Mon Oct 13 10:37:07 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Serhiy Storchaka) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:37:07 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413146037.48.0.365007905195.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <9119709.O8KPFHYyTW@raxxla> Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: > This would be great. For some reason, 90% of Rietveld messages end up caught > by my spam filter provider. Same for me. All have became worse in last months. > I'd prefer a fixed "From:" address. My spam filterer can easily add a > whitelisted From: address, but not so some other header. It's a commercial > product, so I don't have much influence over it. How does your spam filterer handle Roundup messages? They have faked "From:" too, but real address is specified in the "Sender:" header. I have no very strong opinion, but I prefer Roundup solution if it is possible and works for you. _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Mon Oct 13 13:25:30 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (towb) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:25:30 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue555] Registration does not report name conflicts Message-ID: <1413199530.16.0.0951056574514.issue555@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> New submission from towb: If you try to register and the login name is already taken, you'll only find out after clicking the link in the confirmation mail. The unhelpful message is "node exists". The user list is no workaround, as it's only shown when logged in. Registering on a big installation with a common surname can get very annoying. ---------- messages: 2907 nosy: towb priority: feature status: unread title: Registration does not report name conflicts _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Mon Oct 13 16:23:57 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Eric Smith) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:23:57 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1413210237.51.0.632215772934.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Eric Smith added the comment: My spam filterer is MX Logic (now McAfee), for what it's worth. > Do you (or any of the affected recipients) *in principle* *prefer* > having the From field contain the responsible developer? If not, > changing From to contain Reitveld is likely the best solution. I have no preference in principle. I'm just looking for some way to configure MX Logic to not treat Rietveld mail as spam. > How does your spam filterer handle Roundup messages? They have faked "From:" > too, but real address is specified in the "Sender:" header. Roundup messages are never marked as spam, that I've noticed, so I'm not sure how "Sender:" vs. "From:" affects MX Logic. Maybe using "Sender:" and "From:" like Roundup does causes it to not mark the messages as spam, or maybe Roundup messages just look less spammy (fewer links?). > I have no very strong opinion, but I prefer Roundup solution if it is > possible and works for you. That seems reasonable. > Personally I don't see a strong reason for having developers in the > From field. I slightly prefer having Reitveld as the From author, > with a citation to the responsible developer in the message body. But > that might just be me. :-) Same. _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Mon Oct 13 18:41:47 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Georg Brandl) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:41:47 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue555] Registration does not report name conflicts In-Reply-To: <1413199530.16.0.0951056574514.issue555@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1413218507.6.0.997139719944.issue555@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Georg Brandl added the comment: This appears to be suboptimal :) It may be an upstream Roundup problem if we haven't overridden registration in our instance. ---------- nosy: +gbrandl status: unread -> chatting _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Tue Oct 14 13:17:08 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Stefan Richthofer) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:17:08 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue458] editing "homepage" field is not possible In-Reply-To: <1334485569.34.0.217371137544.issue458@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1413285428.35.0.358425135636.issue458@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Stefan Richthofer added the comment: Should this patch have fixed it? I ask because it appears not to be fixed. However rather than the initially mentioned permission related error message, I receive "Tue Oct 14 11:11:10 2014: An error occurred. Please check the server log for more information." ---------- nosy: +stefan.richthofer _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Tue Oct 14 17:54:21 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Hieu Nguyen) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:54:21 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue458] editing "homepage" field is not possible In-Reply-To: <1334485569.34.0.217371137544.issue458@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1413302061.56.0.642523686477.issue458@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Hieu Nguyen added the comment: The patch is not committed yet so indeed you can still see the same bug as before. _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Tue Oct 28 16:09:02 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Hieu Nguyen) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1414508942.64.0.95893013428.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Hieu Nguyen added the comment: I've changed the From address in rietveld to match the solution in roundup, so basically it will send from the same address as roundup. ---------- nosy: +hieu.nguyen _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- diff -r 894c83f36cb7 codereview/views.py --- a/codereview/views.py Tue Jun 24 06:11:43 2014 +0300 +++ b/codereview/views.py Tue Oct 28 17:04:45 2014 +0200 @@ -3253,7 +3253,11 @@ body = django.template.loader.render_to_string( template, context, context_instance=RequestContext(request)) logging.warn('Mail: to=%s; cc=%s', ', '.join(to), ', '.join(cc)) - send_args = {'sender': my_email, + from_email = '{} <{}>'.format( + request.user.get_full_name(), + django_settings.TRACKER_EMAIL + ) + send_args = {'sender': _encode_safely(from_email), 'to': [_encode_safely(address) for address in to], 'subject': _encode_safely(subject), 'body': _encode_safely(body), diff -r 894c83f36cb7 settings.py --- a/settings.py Tue Jun 24 06:11:43 2014 +0300 +++ b/settings.py Tue Oct 28 17:04:45 2014 +0200 @@ -126,3 +126,6 @@ # This won't work with gae2django. RIETVELD_INCOMING_MAIL_ADDRESS = None + +# default From: address +TRACKER_EMAIL = _c.get('tracker', 'email') From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Fri Oct 31 18:32:33 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:32:33 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1414776753.51.0.536355782116.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Antoine Pitrou added the comment: IIRC you can reply to a review email and it will post the reply as a review comment (am I mistaken?). ---------- nosy: +pitrou _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________ From metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za Fri Oct 31 18:33:42 2014 From: metatracker at psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:33:42 +0000 Subject: [Tracker-discuss] [issue554] Add special mark to Rietvelds emails In-Reply-To: <1413143480.64.0.313151672251.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Message-ID: <1414776822.08.0.101314370198.issue554@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> Antoine Pitrou added the comment: The original request is to make the e-mail distinguishable, I'm not sure changing only the sender achieves that. You should probably a marker at the beginning of the subject line (e.g. "[review issue 12345]"). _______________________________________________________ PSF Meta Tracker _______________________________________________________