Re: NM non-process

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: NM non-process
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:56:08 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20030806215608.GD19452@mails.so.argh.org>
Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20030806161608.GF7024@prvidomaci.srce.hr>
References: <3F1BEF24.7030400@twcny.rr.com> <20030721154143.GG3815@mails.so.argh.org> <20030721160056.GB28212@doc.ic.ac.uk> <20030721163610.GA10704@mails.so.argh.org> <20030721173624.GA21733@doc.ic.ac.uk> <20030721201714.GD14411@mails.so.argh.org> <20030721205858.GG4281@doc.ic.ac.uk> <20030721223144.GA17976@mails.so.argh.org> <[🔎] 20030806161608.GF7024@prvidomaci.srce.hr>

* Josip Rodin (joy@srce.hr) [030806 18:35]:
> Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored
> as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it
> happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources).
> [policy of d-d-a]

Yes, I can see the problem. However, it would have helped me much if
this policy would have been clearly stated at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/ (should I open a bug,
or can it be fixed without?).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: NM non-process
  - From: Josip Rodin <joy@srce.hr>
- Re: NM non-process
  - From: neroden@twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode)

References:
- Re: NM non-process
  - From: Josip Rodin <joy@srce.hr>

Prev by Date: Re: Usefulness of SSMTP [Was: Should MUA only Recommend mail-transfer-agent?]
Next by Date: Re: About NM and Next Release
Previous by thread: Re: NM non-process
Next by thread: Re: NM non-process
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread