GNU bug report logs - #335
bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 335 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 335 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Joe Wells <jbw <at> macs.hw.ac.uk>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:31:19 +0100

I've noticed that most of the replies appearing in the gnu.emacs.bug
newsgroup seems to be duplicated.  This duplication is also occurring
in the bug-gnu-emacs mailing list (although most of the web interfaces
to the mailing list detect and hide the duplicates).

I believe this is due to messages being addressed to both
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org and XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com where XYZ is
the bug number.  When someone follows up, their message gets sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org twice, because everything sent to
XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also be sent onward to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.

You can see for yourself in the mailing list archives.  As just one
example, in the file at
<URL:ftp://lists.gnu.org/bug-gnu-emacs/2008-05>, you can see two
messages with the message ID
<jwvwslkzpun.fsf-monnier+emacsbugreports <at> gnu.org>, which are both
copies of a single message that Stefan Monnier posted in reply to a
bug report I posted earlier.  Interestingly, by the time these two
copies show up in the gnu.emacs.bug USENET newsgroup, they have the
two different message IDs
<mailman.12118.1211578329.18990.bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> and
<mailman.12121.1211578334.18990.bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>.

By the way, it seems at first glance that none of these are the
original message ID of Stefan's message, but instead these are fresh
message IDs chosen by the bug tracking software and mailing list
software.  At least the two message IDs that begin with “mailman” are
definitely fresh.  These pieces of software should *not* be making up
fresh message IDs.  Changing message IDs prevents duplicate filtering
software from working, and also leads to fractured message threads
where the reading software can not tell what is a reply to what.

I hope this bug report is helpful in tracking down and stopping this
useless and confusing duplication of messages.

-- 
Joe


-- 
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.

Message #10 received at 335 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Don Armstrong <don <at> donarmstrong.com>
To: Joe Wells <jbw <at> macs.hw.ac.uk>, 335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies
	appearing
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 20:20:31 -0700

On Thu, 29 May 2008, Joe Wells wrote:
> I believe this is due to messages being addressed to both
> bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org and XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com where XYZ
> is the bug number. When someone follows up, their message gets sent
> to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org twice, because everything sent to
> XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also be sent onward to
> bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.

This is because people are using reply-to-all, instead of
reply-to-list or reply-to. I can resolve this by discarding duplicate
message ids, but thats more of a sledgehammer. Far better would be for
people to stop being silly and using reply-to-all, and instead use
reply-to-list or reply-to, both of which are set properly and behave
correctly.
 
> Interestingly, by the time these two copies show up in the
> gnu.emacs.bug USENET newsgroup, they have the two different message
> IDs <mailman.12118.1211578329.18990.bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> and
> <mailman.12121.1211578334.18990.bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>.
>
> By the way, it seems at first glance that none of these are the
> original message ID of Stefan's message, but instead these are fresh
> message IDs chosen by the bug tracking software and mailing list
> software.  At least the two message IDs that begin with “mailman” are
> definitely fresh.  These pieces of software should *not* be making up
> fresh message IDs. 

Debbugs has nothing to do with these message IDs; it adds
Resent-Message-Id: for the messages which it forwards, and retains the
original Message-Id:. Most likely this is something to do with the
mailman list-to-news gateway.


Don Armstrong

-- 
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research.
 -- Steven Wright

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #15 received at 335 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Joe Wells <jbw <at> macs.hw.ac.uk>
To: 335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:27:59 +0100

Don Armstrong <don <at> donarmstrong.com> writes:

> On Thu, 29 May 2008, Joe Wells wrote:
>> I believe this is due to messages being addressed to both
>> bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org and XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com where XYZ
>> is the bug number. When someone follows up, their message gets sent
>> to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org twice, because everything sent to
>> XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also be sent onward to
>> bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.
>
> This is because people are using reply-to-all, instead of
> reply-to-list or reply-to. I can resolve this by discarding duplicate
> message ids, but thats more of a sledgehammer. Far better would be for
> people to stop being silly and using reply-to-all, and instead use
> reply-to-list or reply-to, both of which are set properly and behave
> correctly.

Unfortunately, there is no way to know whether all of the recipient
addresses in a message are on the mailing list.  Even if this is so
for one mailing list, it might not be the case for other mailing
lists.  So people can not in general rely on the behavior of any
“reply” function of their mail program to reach the right people.

In this case, a good solution is that the bug tracking software could
make sure to always omit bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org from the list of
recipients whenever XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com is going to be one
of the recipients.  This will work in this case because anything sent
to XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also get sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org.

I notice that you just now have started adding a Mail-Followup-To
header.  This is a good idea.  I notice that don <at> donarmstrong.com is
not in the Mail-Followup-To header.  I'm curious, how does your
software know to omit this address?  Do you receive a copy of all bug
report traffic regardless?

>> Interestingly, by the time these two copies show up in the
>> gnu.emacs.bug USENET newsgroup, they have the two different message
>> IDs <mailman.12118.1211578329.18990.bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> and
>> <mailman.12121.1211578334.18990.bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>.
>>
>> By the way, it seems at first glance that none of these are the
>> original message ID of Stefan's message, but instead these are fresh
>> message IDs chosen by the bug tracking software and mailing list
>> software.  At least the two message IDs that begin with “mailman” are
>> definitely fresh.  These pieces of software should *not* be making up
>> fresh message IDs. 
>
> Debbugs has nothing to do with these message IDs; it adds
> Resent-Message-Id: for the messages which it forwards, and retains the
> original Message-Id:. Most likely this is something to do with the
> mailman list-to-news gateway.

Indeed, the “mailman” prefix of the message IDs hints at this.  I
don't know how the mailman software maintainers can justify this.

When I wrote my report, it seemed to me that the message ID
<jwvwslkzpun.fsf-monnier+emacsbugreports <at> gnu.org> might have been
generated by your software.  I am happy to hear this is not the case.

-- 
Joe


-- 
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.

Message #20 received at 335 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Joe Wells <jbw <at> macs.hw.ac.uk>
Cc: 335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:45 -0400

>> This is because people are using reply-to-all, instead of
>> reply-to-list or reply-to. I can resolve this by discarding duplicate

reply-to-all is my default mode of operation, because it's the one that
minimizes the risk of missing someone.  I'm not going to change this
habit based on whether or not this message is on the bugtracker: my
intention is to send it to all the recipients, so I use reply-to-all.

> When I wrote my report, it seemed to me that the message ID
> <jwvwslkzpun.fsf-monnier+emacsbugreports <at> gnu.org> might have been

These mine.


        Stefan

Message #27 received at 335 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Don Armstrong <don <at> donarmstrong.com>
To: Joe Wells <jbw <at> macs.hw.ac.uk>, 335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies
	appearing
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:50:41 -0700

On Fri, 30 May 2008, Joe Wells wrote:
> Even if this is so for one mailing list, it might not be the case
> for other mailing lists. So people can not in general rely on the
> behavior of any “reply” function of their mail program to reach the
> right people.

That's why you use reply-to-list, which obeys Mail-Followup-To: which
people can easily use to indicate that they should be Cc:'ed or not.

reply-to-all is a ugly work-around for bad MUAs and people who don't
know any better. [It leads to duplicate messages...]

> In this case, a good solution is that the bug tracking software
> could make sure to always omit bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org from the list
> of recipients whenever XYZ <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com is going to be
> one of the recipients.

That would require prescience, which isn't going to happen. To:
message headers don't necessarily indicate who actually received a
message.

> I notice that you just now have started adding a Mail-Followup-To
> header.

I always add MFT if I want a copy, and don't when I don't.

> This is a good idea. I notice that don <at> donarmstrong.com is not in
> the Mail-Followup-To header. I'm curious, how does your software
> know to omit this address?

It doesn't. I put it in when I need it.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.     
 -- Robert Heinlein

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.