From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GhCII-0004D2-4D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:46:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA6LjHoI025447; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:45:17 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kA6Lh03J014987 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:43:00 GMT Received: from home.wh0rd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7368864508 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:42:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5099 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2006 16:39:46 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 6 Nov 2006 16:39:46 -0500 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20061101134037.6F126649AC@smtp.gentoo.org> <1162841820.10506.42.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <454FB05F.9050709@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <454FB05F.9050709@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2431094.nx6sn5pWdj"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200611061643.25418.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c0725428-7a81-4fc1-8927-7358d8e73c57 X-Archives-Hash: 7d1432b22423ad5c0f2211957194bf3b --nextPart2431094.nx6sn5pWdj Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote: > Chris Gianelloni napsal(a): > >> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to > >> the council... :/ > > > > So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for > > this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the > > council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. > > No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a > *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF > thing. so what are you looking for ? us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument ov= er=20 again ? infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ..= =2E=20 how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ? =2Dmike --nextPart2431094.nx6sn5pWdj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARU+sfUFjO5/oN/WBAQLogRAA5V+Q0jj9t9g0nqjib5NCP6yXrFvfF4wt e2KyeDGw1da4HO2k6VX5ydgUuCtri92u1TfpKb/Kn1QzabAsV8dTr/oEoisAnyns 4FK5r0a7NOnK3N7aCUJN7TJziKpSqrRN/xXWsjhXsEuWCX0/57EafzYwwjqeEZaf PagiAtIeMtEGjlZeDSoqmjqg57cEzSoxAC+vfEZ0uxxjXpJtkUqSnC4v7Utf6cZK hNZDijfLFNTniNPBvHSiQwiGApKUAPSBYgxLZAP5zfSIyOFQqCALkZjf2qP5TNsd 3IW6zvLssr/JV/zWhqOkcfG0RDZwb3b40cv+1hV5J1YI6Aspf7UApOeOzh9ccn+t dksPnz6adIYKJKLJx88yvwf0M9sJCQ/dLt5NTGquudD5pRRjDh+XMpDJ5KWIv4yj 9Nnu18yH+Z/hnNILQayWIDU6ilufKfI1ctIj4rrIj7BtVUZV5s9JwPp4ivDRuT9t KBnVWeDmbgzgpU0v6Exax4tj6so06mLJdSRqYlaG0QwCzE4TOCERUqrvTLRQMPNZ lUAPWRMib8Q10LI+/TSQJFOknHNrRA7JxnMoss6PPTh4BeJQPsBOoGAyPlvfs7wH XFNk+UGZAYaEskriGKlZU1HbntVQRh02dBQSbbSjxN6rCFnoWdrBzsRVrxnaQlCc 1zmnob6IjRw= =u5uG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2431094.nx6sn5pWdj-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list