Inline bug attachments aren't attached

Here's the message source Kmail saved in my sent messages:

From: Scott Kitterman <email address hidden>
Bcc: <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Please sync postfix 2.5.1-1 (main) from Debian unstable (main)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:01:30 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
X-KMail-Transport: mailout02-tls
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart2322462.bvYOm5UC8C";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Status: RO
X-Status: RST
X-KMail-EncryptionState:
X-KMail-SignatureState:
X-KMail-MDN-Sent:

--nextPart2322462.bvYOm5UC8C
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
  boundary="Boundary-01=_653vHTUf8iP7c1B"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--Boundary-01=_653vHTUf8iP7c1B
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

 affects ubuntu/postfix
 status confirmed
 subscribe ubuntu-archive

Please sync postfix 2.5.1-1 (main) from Debian unstable (main).
Changelog since current hardy version 2.5.1~rc1-1:

postfix (2.5.1-1) unstable; urgency=3Dlow

  [Helge Kreutzmann]

  * l10n: new de.po. Closes: #465479

  [Wietse Venema]

  * New upstream release

  [LaMont Jones]

  * rules: add msg-email target

 -- LaMont Jones <email address hidden> Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:17:18 -0700

Diffstat attached.

Upstream changes:

20080207

        Cleanup: soft_bounce support for multi-line Milter replies.
        File: src/milter/milter8.c.

        Cleanup: preserve multi-line format of header/body Milter
        replies. Files: cleanup/cleanup_milter.c, smtpd/smtpd.c.

        Cleanup: multi-line support in SMTP server replies. File:
        smtpd/smtpd_chat.c.

Package builds in Hardy. Tested upgrade from Gutsy version to Hardy versio=
n=20
with no problems. Upstream has a very good record with not having=20
regressions in releases. This is a bug fix only release.

Moving from the 2.5.1 RC to the 2.5.1 final brings us to the current Postfi=
x=20
release and fixes an issue that does have a negative impact on=20
interoperability with other packages (any Milter that uses multi-line Milte=
r=20
replies would fail without the fix).

Lamont said he wanted the package sync'ed.

--Boundary-01=_653vHTUf8iP7c1B
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8";
  name="diffstat.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="diffstat.txt"

 HISTORY | 12 ++++++
 README_FILES/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README | 2 -
 debian/changelog | 16 +++++++++
 debian/po/de.po | 17 ++++-----
 debian/rules | 3 +
 html/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html | 2 -
 html/postconf.5.html | 5 +-
 man/man5/postconf.5 | 5 +-
 proto/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html | 2 -
 proto/postconf.proto | 5 +-
 src/cleanup/cleanup.c | 6 ++-
 src/cleanup/cleanup.h | 1=20
 ...

I also noticed this when I reported 194576.

This is even worse. Non text/plain files will be ignored, as they can't be added inline. See bug 195275.

This is because attachments with a content-disposition of 'inline' are ignored. We should fix this.

The fact that text attachments get appended to the comment is a different bug.

I've filed bug 196425 about the attachments being included in the comment itself.

WTF.

You edit my bug to be something different and then file another bug that is my original bug.

I give up.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:06:00PM -0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> WTF.
>
> You edit my bug to be something different and then file another bug that
> is my original bug.

It was unclear what was your "original bug". Your bug report contained
two different bugs. You complained on both the attachment not being
attached to the bug, and that the attachment got added to the
comment/description. It's so much easier to handle if if there's one
issue per bug report, so as a general rule we split up bug reports if
they contain more than one bug.

> I give up.

Would you rather have preferred that I would have asked you to split up
the bug report into two, instead of doing it for you? The last time I
asked you to do it, you said you didn't have time to do it. If it makes
you feel better, I guess you could switch the description of this bug
and bug 196425, but I don't see the point.

No. I didn't.

Don't worry. You won't need to be bothere by bug reports from me any more.

Someone else complained in this bug about attachments being lost.

Bugs like this are trivial to detect in testing. Clearly QA is shoved on
the end users. I'm finished doing volunteer QA on someone else's
commercial product.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:00:24PM -0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No. I didn't.

Your bug summary stated:

    Mailed bug attachments aren't attached, but in the bug itself

I'm sorry that I intepreted "aren't attached" as "the bug attachments
aren't attached to the bug. As I said, feel free to correct my mistake.

> Someone else complained in this bug about attachments being lost.

Yes, and it was marked as a duplicate of this bug before I edited it.

> Bugs like this are trivial to detect in testing. Clearly QA is shoved on
> the end users. I'm finished doing volunteer QA on someone else's
> commercial product.

We did detect that text attachments were added to the
comment/description itself. We didn't consider this to be a showstopper,
though.

OK. That doesn't parse at all. Text in the bug and not attached is one
problem.

I guess then I was wrong. Above substitute release broken functionality on
purpose and don't bother to even document the problems for don't test.
That still doesn't encourage me to waste time refinding breakage that's
already known, but developers can't be bothered to document.