Mr. Nerode,
It is quite rude to accuse me via your ISP of being a spammer. Please
stop doing, and please stop mailing me privately until you can rectify
this problem.
Like the Bush Administration, it appears ISPs are quite content to cite
"security" as a justification for policies that abuse and disadvantage
innocent parties.
----- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON@deadbeast.net> -----
From: Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON@deadbeast.net>
To: branden@deadbeast.net
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:38:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031207013808.49AB564140@redwald.deadbeast.net>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=2.60
Content-Description: Notification
This is the Postfix program at host redwald.deadbeast.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
<neroden@twcny.rr.com>: host nymx-1.nyroc.rr.com[24.92.226.31] said: 550 5.7.1
Mail Refused - 65.26.182 - See
http://security.rr.com/mail_blocks.htm#security - 20031205 (in reply to
MAIL FROM command)
Content-Description: Delivery error report
Reporting-MTA: dns; redwald.deadbeast.net
Arrival-Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:38:07 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; neroden@twcny.rr.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host nymx-1.nyroc.rr.com[24.92.226.31] said: 550
5.7.1 Mail Refused - 65.26.182 - See
http://security.rr.com/mail_blocks.htm#security - 20031205 (in reply to
MAIL FROM command)
Content-Description: Undelivered Message
From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
Subject: Re: the GCC -traditional-cpp bugs
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:38:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20031207013806.GD31195@deadbeast.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 01:25:15PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >If I understand you correctly, then the following clarification should
> >help:
> <snip>
> The actual issue is the backslashes at the ends of the lines. Should
> they be there or not? Or does it not matter either way?
Yes, they absolutely should be kept there, i.e. left intact.
> >I think XFree86 will be happy if "[C preprocessor] directives *really*
> >need to be in column 1 to be treated as directives."
>
> When that fix gets into 3.3_branch in the GCC CVS, I'll ask Matthias to
> put it into the Debian packages, and I'll tell you when he's done that. OK?
Sounds good.
--
G. Branden Robinson | There's no trick to being a
Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole
branden@debian.org | government working for you.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers
----- End forwarded message -----
--
G. Branden Robinson | I am sorry, but what you have
Free Software Developer | mistaken for malicious intent is
branden@deadbeast.net | nothing more than sheer
http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature