This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 178016 - Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
Summary: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: www
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Admin (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: PC Linux
: P1 normal with 2 votes (vote)
Assignee: Marco Walther
URL:
Keywords:
: 178060 182635 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-12-02 12:37 UTC by Martin Entlicher
Modified: 2011-11-19 15:58 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments
Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed (5.72 KB, text/plain)
2009-12-02 12:37 UTC, Martin Entlicher
Details
Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender (4.09 KB, text/plain)
2009-12-02 12:43 UTC, Martin Entlicher
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin Entlicher 2009-12-02 12:37:13 UTC
Created attachment 92003 [details]
Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed

Why do I get mails like this and what am I supposed to do with them?
It was sent to me several times as a result of change in an issue which was submitted by a former Sun employee. His e-mail address does not work any more. But I do not think I should be bothered by this...
Comment 1 Martin Entlicher 2009-12-02 12:43:38 UTC
Created attachment 92004 [details]
Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Comment 2 leawang 2009-12-02 23:40:03 UTC
Since you were the sender of the email, hence you got the bounced email notice.  It is not really a bug.  Thanks.
Comment 3 Martin Entlicher 2009-12-03 01:16:36 UTC
Well, I do not think that Issuezilla was sending such spam. Was it?
Comment 4 Jesse Glick 2009-12-03 06:19:17 UTC
I have been bothered by this as well and if I recall correctly it was not a problem when using Issuezilla.

Martin is not really the sender - he did not compose a message and place people on the To list; Bugzilla sent the mail and just put his name in the From field as a convenience for mail clients. There is

From: mentlicher@netbeans.org
Sender: izadmins-owner@netbeans.org
Errors-to: izadmins-owner@netbeans.org
Errors-to: izadmins-owner@netbeans.org

Surely bounces should therefore go to izadmins-owner@netbeans.org and be ignored rather than being sent to the person who happened to modify the bug.
Comment 5 Petr Blaha 2009-12-03 06:22:00 UTC
Duplicate of the bug #178060
Comment 6 Jesse Glick 2009-12-03 06:22:26 UTC
*** Bug 178060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 leawang 2009-12-03 09:15:05 UTC
Downgrade to P2. We were not aware of the requirement prior to the migration.

Filed a corresponding kenai improvement issue at:

http://kenai.com/jira/browse/KENAI-1693.
Comment 8 Marco Walther 2009-12-03 11:12:22 UTC
Unfortunately, we can't really control what the last MTA does when a addressee does not exist:-(

Before, all messages were sent from bugzilla-daemon@<domain> and all the bounce-notifications were sent back to that. But many NB users did not like that, so we changed it. Now emails are send from the `changing user'. 

Martins first attachment has:

-----------------------------------------------
From: mentlicher@netbeans.org
Subject: [Bug 95896] Undescribed state of paused application without breakpoints
In-reply-to: <bug-95896-1344@http.netbeans.org/bugzilla/>
To: ehucka@netbeans.org
-----------------------------------------------

as the original header. (The second is a direct email as well) So this email was send `directly' to a user, no mailing list involved. Sympa (the mailing list manager), tries to do some bounce handling, but that will only work for emails sent from the list.

Iff somebody knows of a nice bounce handler for postfix or amavisd-new, which could be made to work with our setup, that might be a solution. But the problem is, we would have to find a way to `reset' the bounce status, once a user changes the email address.


The steps are something like:
* mentlicher@nb sends an email to ehucka@nb
* it reaches our postfix and that translates ehucka@nb into the final address for the user
* the email is forwarded to the final address
* the final MTA sends the delivery notification back to mentlicher@nb, because the user does not exist (any longer)
* it reaches our postfix again and that translates mentlicher@nb to Martin's final address.
+ now, if we had something what would recognize `delivery notification' emails and basically update our user-DB with that info, it would help.
* unfortunately, the email is forwarded to Martin's final address
Comment 9 Jesse Glick 2009-12-03 15:35:53 UTC
Not sure how SourceCast did it correctly, but it seems they did - mails appeared to come "from" the originating user, but that user did not get bounces (that I ever recall).
Comment 10 Marian Mirilovic 2010-04-21 12:09:57 UTC
This doesn't look professional, I am still getting such emails ;(
Comment 11 Jan Pirek 2011-01-28 13:42:16 UTC
Lea, 
number of these emails is rising exponentially as people used to work on Netbeans are leaving Oracle and their emails are not delivered. Could you please fix it ASAP ? Thanks in advance.
Comment 12 Vince Kraemer 2011-07-12 16:24:58 UTC
Since Lea doesn't work for Oracle or on Kenai anymore, we might want to reassign this to an actual person that can and might do something to resolve the problem...

I do not know who that person would be...  If I did, these issues would be assigned to them when I committed this comment.
Comment 13 Marian Mirilovic 2011-11-16 10:16:50 UTC
still valid and still very very annoying ... reassign to default owner
Comment 14 Marco Walther 2011-11-18 22:32:00 UTC
The next BZ (currently in staging) will add the Sender: & Errors-to: headers to the outgoing emails. But I don't know how well MTA's will respect them.

NB chose to have the `bug-changer' as the From: in bug emails, so that affects this. (Default BZ is to use `bugzilla-daemon')
Comment 15 Marco Walther 2011-11-18 22:34:10 UTC
*** Bug 182635 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16 Jesse Glick 2011-11-19 15:58:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> NB chose to have the `bug-changer' as the From: in bug emails, so that affects
> this.

Not inherently; see comment #9.