Mathieu Roy <yeupou@coleumes.org> writes:
> Pascal Hakim <pasc@redellipse.net> wrote:
>> So a number of people who are opposed to mangling code and archive
>> names, and destroying the ability to check GPG signatures of messages in
>> the archives in the name of reducing spam have brought up a number of
>> points that must be taken care before we can consider doing it, and
>> that's the best you can come up with?
>
> Apparently you are only focused on finding issues in the proposal, not
> in improving it to make it feasible.
That's because he wants you to understand that your proposal isn't
suitable for our needs. There's no way to improve it - it's simply not a
solution.
Marc
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse # <mailto:marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>
Attachment:
pgpmQlaWhqpsn.pgp
Description: PGP signature