On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:48:09PM +0100, Frank S. Thomas wrote:
> On Monday 11 September 2006 11:11, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:22:08AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2006, 21:22 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > > > For my part, I find it pretty o
On Monday 11 September 2006 11:11, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:22:08AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2006, 21:22 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > > For my part, I find it pretty offensive that a mailing list that's set
> > > as the maintainer of a pack
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:18:32PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:10:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The whitelist field in mailman accepts regular expressions. This is
> > > trivial.
> > If
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:18:32PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:10:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The whitelist field in mailman accepts regular expressions. This is
> > trivial.
>
> If you can _find_ the whitelist field. It is very well hidden.
Oh, come o
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:10:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:21:54PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> it's not the first time such a question is raised, I did that
>>> recently enough, for a foo-package I don't even remem
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:21:54PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > it's not the first time such a question is raised, I did that recently
> > enough, for a foo-package I don't even remember (some python messages
> > that bounced to me). that is compl
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:11, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > It is really unfortunate that the regulation of moderation is hidden
> > under a "privacy" menu in Mailman. Maybe the most straightforward mean
> > to slove this in the future would be to make the
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Unfortunately, I haven't seen much support for my position yet - most
> responses are in the line of "if you don't want to be flamed, don't set
> the mailinglist to moderated". I remain at "flaming your fellows never
> helps the project, making requests
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:21:54PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it's not the first time such a question is raised, I did that
>> recently enough, for a foo-package I don't even remember (some
>> python messages that bounced to me). that is completely i
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 02:11, Charles Plessy wrote:
> It is really unfortunate that the regulation of moderation is hidden
> under a "privacy" menu in Mailman. Maybe the most straightforward mean
> to slove this in the future would be to make the new lists unmoderated
> by default?
Or ask th
Le Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:09:26AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> Why are you even in a position that such mistakes are
> possible? Why is the recipient of the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> moderated at all?
>
Hi all,
It happens because it is the default behaviour when you :
- Request t
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 09:14 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Are you saying stupid people can't make honest mistakes? I
> would think that these are not mutually exclusive characterizations.
> As for determining intelligence of an action, I would much rather
> call a spade a spade. It i
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's not the first time such a question is raised, I did that recently
> enough, for a foo-package I don't even remember (some python messages
> that bounced to me). that is completely inadequate, and whitelisting
> any @bugs.debian.org From address
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:59:35 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > > Any maintainer doing suc
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:26:52 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
>> > following reason for rejecting your request:
>> >
>> > "No reason given"
>> Any maint
Le lun 11 septembre 2006 15:36, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> * Pierre Habouzit
>
> | I've already stated it, and I do it again: I do consider ok that
> | the Maintainer field of some co-maintained package is a list, that
> | really makes sense, but *that* list should never ever use
> | sender-based
* Pierre Habouzit
| I've already stated it, and I do it again: I do consider ok that the
| Maintainer field of some co-maintained package is a list, that really
| makes sense, but *that* list should never ever use sender-based
| moderation.
Does this mean you don't consider using [EMAIL PROTE
Le lun 11 septembre 2006 10:59, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > > Any maintainer doing such a braindead stupi
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> It's your right to have such an opinion, but it's not the question at
> hand. The point I raised is: is it appropriate to assume that a fellow
> maintainer is "braindead" or "stupid", or rather assume that he made an
> honest mistak
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:22:08AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2006, 21:22 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> > For my part, I find it pretty offensive that a mailing list that's set as
> > the maintainer of a package would have mail filters configured this way in
> > the first
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 21:22 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > Any maintainer doing such a braindead stupid thing - do not wonder if I
> > > reject your package without any
Am Sonntag, den 10.09.2006, 21:22 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> For my part, I find it pretty offensive that a mailing list that's set as
> the maintainer of a package would have mail filters configured this way in
> the first place. For the samba packaging team, for instance, I've taken
> pains
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:26:52PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> > > following reason for rejecting your request:
> > > "No reason given"
> > Any maintainer doing suc
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Actually, I was indeed about to say this in this thread ("Reject"
> being IIRC the default setting in mailman
[...]
Not that it matters, just for completeness sake. - The default value
is defer.
cu andreas
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy un
> It would really help if people assumed that their fellow developers are
> in good faith, and that something that seems unacceptable is just an
> honest mistake until proven otherwise. Like this, or like the "BTS wars"
> mails also of today.
Actually, I was indeed about to say this in this threa
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 11:48 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> > following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> > "No reason given"
> Any maintainer doing such a braindead stupid thing - do not wonder if I
> reject your package wi
On 10770 March 1977, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your request to the Pkg-qof-maintainers mailing list
>
> Posting of your message titled "qof_0.7.1-1_i386.changes is NEW"
>
> has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
> following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> "No r
27 matches
Mail list logo
