On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:01:34PM -0400, Israel Leiva wrote:
Hi.
I support what Philipp and Nima say about keywords. The given commands surely look simple for technical users, but what about non-technical users? If the purpose of the distributor is to give info, and you're already filtering emails to *try* to avoid fake requests (correct if i'm wrong), then you may assume that if somebody sends you an email is because he/she is requesting for info, and if the email contains "bridges", it's quite possible he/she wants bridges, right? You could, for example, filter for "transport" (ignoring case) and send a reply with info for all types, explaining what they do, and let the user decide which one to use. You could also send both ipv4 and ipv6 IPs when requesting bridges. And why not sending a public key link in all the replies (except help)? IMHO, this reduces the effort on the user side (this is how we're doing it on the revamp GetTor project).
best,
I actually think your idea about accepting "[get] transport" as a valid help request, returning a description of each supported PT, is a great idea. We currently have some information about PTs on the website distributor, but the email distributor is lacking.
I believe we are also planning on signing every email (soonish?) and will provide the same footer as the help message (if this changed, then we should change it back).
We also do try to discard fake requests, isis actually added another yesterday!
Basically, what I've gotten from this thread is that the email distributor is doing an Okay job right now, but if it was smarter about how it parsed messages and made more assumptions about what the user actually wanted then this would make it more usable and could, possibly, make the world a better place. I think this latter decision deserves a separate thread, so I won't sidetrack this, but bring this back on-point, do you have any other suggestions related to the current format of the email or of the flow?
Thanks for your feedback!