From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:44:41 2025 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Subject: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing Reply-To: Joe Wells , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-From: Joe Wells Resent-To: bug-submit-list@lists.donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 22:40:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 335 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool by submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B.12121003032725 (code B ref -1); Thu, 29 May 2008 22:40:05 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FVGT_m_MULTI_ODD, IMPRONONCABLE_1,MURPHY_WRONG_WORD1,MURPHY_WRONG_WORD2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at submit) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 29 May 2008 22:31:43 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m4TMVXU6002719 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 15:31:35 -0700 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1qej-000204-CQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 18:31:33 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1qeh-0001xq-Me for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 18:31:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60870 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1qeh-0001xk-GH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 18:31:31 -0400 Received: from mail-r.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.101.217]:33831) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K1qeh-0000jC-5u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 18:31:31 -0400 Received: from izanami.macs.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.13.6]) by mail-r.hw.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1K1qeP-0005h6-Nj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:31:13 +0100 Received: from selene.macs.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.27.40]:36141 helo=127.0.0.1) by izanami.macs.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1K1qeP-00067A-AX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:31:13 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 23312 invoked by uid 1001); Thu, 29 May 2008 22:31:19 -0000 To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org From: Joe Wells Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:31:19 +0100 Message-ID: <86r6bkwxmw.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-HW-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the HW Helpdesk for more information X-HW-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HW-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.399, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-HW-MailScanner-From: jbw@macs.hw.ac.uk X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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@gnu.org and XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com where XYZ is the bug number. When someone follows up, their message gets sent to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org twice, because everything sent to XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also be sent onward to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org. You can see for yourself in the mailing list archives. As just one example, in the file at , you can see two messages with the message ID , 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 and . 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 =E2=80=9Cmailman=E2= =80=9D 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. --=20 Joe --=20 Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278. From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:44:41 2025 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Subject: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing Reply-To: Don Armstrong , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-From: Don Armstrong Resent-To: bug-submit-list@lists.donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 03:30:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 335 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool by 335-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B335.12121176449702 (code B ref 335); Fri, 30 May 2008 03:30:03 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=ham version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at 335) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 30 May 2008 03:20:44 +0000 Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (archimedes.ucr.edu [138.23.92.79]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with SMTP id m4U3KVKe009696; Thu, 29 May 2008 20:20:32 -0700 Received: (nullmailer pid 27576 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 30 May 2008 03:20:31 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 20:20:31 -0700 From: Don Armstrong To: Joe Wells , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Message-ID: <20080530032031.GJ3071@rzlab.ucr.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Joe Wells , 335@debbugs.gnu.org References: <86r6bkwxmw.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <86r6bkwxmw.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) On Thu, 29 May 2008, Joe Wells wrote: > I believe this is due to messages being addressed to both > bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org and XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com where XYZ > is the bug number. When someone follows up, their message gets sent > to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org twice, because everything sent to > XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also be sent onward to > bug-gnu-emacs@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. =20 > Interestingly, by the time these two copies show up in the > gnu.emacs.bug USENET newsgroup, they have the two different message > IDs and > . > > 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 =E2=80=9Cmailman= =E2=80=9D are > definitely fresh. These pieces of software should *not* be making up > fresh message IDs.=20 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 --=20 To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. -- Steven Wright http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:44:41 2025 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Subject: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing Reply-To: Joe Wells , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-From: Joe Wells Resent-To: bug-submit-list@lists.donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:35:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 335 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool by 335-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B335.121214330116556 (code B ref 335); Fri, 30 May 2008 10:35:03 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FVGT_m_MULTI_ODD, HAS_BUG_NUMBER,IMPRONONCABLE_1,MURPHY_WRONG_WORD1,MURPHY_WRONG_WORD2 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at 335) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 30 May 2008 10:28:21 +0000 Received: from mail-r4.hw.ac.uk (mail-r.hw.ac.uk [137.195.101.219]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m4UASG1F016549 for <335@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Fri, 30 May 2008 03:28:18 -0700 Received: from izanami.macs.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.13.6]) by mail-r.hw.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1K21px-0006mr-1F for 335@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:27:53 +0100 Received: from selene.macs.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.27.40]:36306 helo=127.0.0.1) by izanami.macs.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1K21pw-0001Yf-R2 for 335@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:27:52 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 11100 invoked by uid 1001); Fri, 30 May 2008 10:27:59 -0000 To: 335@debbugs.gnu.org References: <86r6bkwxmw.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> From: Joe Wells Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:27:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Don Armstrong's message of "Thu\, 29 May 2008 20\:20\:31 -0700") Message-ID: <86hccgw0gg.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-HW-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the HW Helpdesk for more information X-HW-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HW-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 5, autolearn=not spam) X-HW-MailScanner-From: jbw@macs.hw.ac.uk Don Armstrong writes: > On Thu, 29 May 2008, Joe Wells wrote: >> I believe this is due to messages being addressed to both >> bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org and XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com where XYZ >> is the bug number. When someone follows up, their message gets sent >> to bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org twice, because everything sent to >> XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also be sent onward to >> bug-gnu-emacs@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 =E2=80=9Creply=E2=80=9D function of their mail program to reach the right p= eople. In this case, a good solution is that the bug tracking software could make sure to always omit bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org from the list of recipients whenever XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com is going to be one of the recipients. This will work in this case because anything sent to XYZ@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com will also get sent to bug-gnu-emacs@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@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 and >> . >> >> 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 =E2=80=9Cmailman= =E2=80=9D are >> definitely fresh. These pieces of software should *not* be making up >> fresh message IDs.=20 > > 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 =E2=80=9Cmailman=E2=80=9D prefix of the message IDs hints at th= is. 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 might have been generated by your software. I am happy to hear this is not the case. --=20 Joe --=20 Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278. From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:44:41 2025 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Subject: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing Reply-To: Stefan Monnier , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Resent-To: bug-submit-list@lists.donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:45:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 335 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool by 335-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B335.121215473931155 (code B ref 335); Fri, 30 May 2008 13:45:06 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FVGT_m_MULTI_ODD, HAS_BUG_NUMBER,HELO_LH_HOME,IMPRONONCABLE_1,MURPHY_WRONG_WORD1, MURPHY_WRONG_WORD2,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at 335) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 30 May 2008 13:38:59 +0000 Received: from ceviche.home (206-248-174-248.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.174.248]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m4UDckb5031149 for <335@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Fri, 30 May 2008 06:38:48 -0700 Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BFB6CB41E2; Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Joe Wells Cc: 335@debbugs.gnu.org Message-ID: References: <86r6bkwxmw.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> <86hccgw0gg.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <86hccgw0gg.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> (Joe Wells's message of "Fri, 30 May 2008 11:27:59 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> 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 > might have been These mine. Stefan From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:44:41 2025 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Subject: bug#335: bug tracking system leads to duplicate replies appearing Reply-To: Don Armstrong , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-From: Don Armstrong Resent-To: bug-submit-list@lists.donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: don@donarmstrong.com Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:00:04 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 335 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacssbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool by 335-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B335.121324625010759 (code B ref 335); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:00:04 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=ham version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at 335) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 12 Jun 2008 04:50:50 +0000 Received: from archimedes.ucr.edu (archimedes.ucr.edu [138.23.92.79]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with SMTP id m5C4ofwQ010753; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:50:42 -0700 Received: (nullmailer pid 1958 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:50:41 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:50:41 -0700 From: Don Armstrong To: Joe Wells , 335@debbugs.gnu.org Message-ID: <20080612045041.GL17024@archimedes.ucr.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Joe Wells , 335@debbugs.gnu.org References: <86r6bkwxmw.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> <86hccgw0gg.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <86hccgw0gg.fsf@macs.hw.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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 =E2=80=9Creply=E2=80=9D 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@gnu.org from the list > of recipients whenever XYZ@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@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 --=20 Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. =20 -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 17 12:22:29 2009 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Dec 2009 17:22:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLK3Y-0006um-EL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:28 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLK3X-0006uX-7I for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:27 -0500 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLK3S-0002LA-Ed; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19242.26830.317927.267307@fencepost.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:22 -0500 From: Glenn Morris To: control Subject: control X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org reassign 936 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 3060 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 3140 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 252 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 335 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 749 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 750 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 922 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 1780 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 1826 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 2472 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 3267 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 430 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 860 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 1030 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 2091 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 2645 debbugs.gnu.org unarchive 388 unarchive 389 unarchive 1567 unarchive 1568 unarchive 1886 reassign 388 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 389 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 1567 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 1568 debbugs.gnu.org reassign 1886 debbugs.gnu.org archive 388 archive 389 archive 1567 archive 1568 archive 1886