Re: `debian-ctte@d.o' etc. blackhole

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: `debian-ctte@d.o' etc. blackhole"):
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >   6. We insist that debian-ctte@d.o should be an alias for
> >      debian-ctte@lists.d.o.
> 
> Ok, I just did that.

thanks.

> >   7. We insist that tech-ctte@lists.d.o should either bounce or be an
> >      alias for debian-ctte@lists.d.o.
> 
> Hmm, someone else will have to do that. I'm not willing to fiddle with
> murphy since I have not studied the new setup.

Err, yes, I ought to ask listmaster about that.

> Are you sure this is true? I didn't find any mention of a tech-ctte@lists
> address after a few mins of random grepping, so this might be a general
> black hole for all unmatched lists addresses.

I've sent a test mail and we'll see what happens to it.

> >  10. Our Chairman has made informal requests, including mails to
> >      debian-admin@lists.d.o to correct this problem, and engaged in
> 
> Must have just got forgotten.. Not sure, I can't read -admin these days,
> it gets too much spam.

:-(

> >  16. Mail for all unknown local parts @d.o is currently accepted.
..
> You found this is all untrue right? The relays will do this, but AFICT the
> primary should not.

Yes.

Thanks,
Ian.