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 1GhD2b-0002en-Ko for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:34:06 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA6MVw9c022623; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:31:58 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 kA6MP3g7011164 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:25:04 GMT Received: from phi.witten.lan (p83.129.25.196.tisdip.tiscali.de [83.129.25.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC1F64143 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:25:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Danny van Dyk Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:14:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20061101134037.6F126649AC@smtp.gentoo.org> <454DDAC3.4030208@gentoo.org> <1162841820.10506.42.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> In-Reply-To: <1162841820.10506.42.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> X-Face: =?utf-8?q?57Z3foFdBj=3BKdmU=5EFM=2Eec=5C4=7BQf/F6=25ePh=5C=5DM=5EaXPX*=5D?= =?utf-8?q?J5S=7CM=7E+vR=3F=24iW=5Cn44=5E2sguPTOtw=0A=09fe+7gKTm*!OXGQPYqML?= =?utf-8?q?=7CL1ezSI3-=27E=25zxZigvAK?=>3$?~'4IPBoi\H2)pV6U(26V@ =?utf-8?q?jq=7CAIp=0A=09yY?=>'!D}EOi=Q+-|CIh-d4riWfZZ">G.Rj!}78kX$8Zt0:epNWTo[{_/zJb< =?utf-8?q?Ud=2Eon=7EprEW*=0A=09tIvqI=7B+e=3AgMC?= 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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611062214.03691.kugelfang@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c1c687d1-0893-4a24-86af-47b5d5968665 X-Archives-Hash: c3ad22ea990b418fd88ddfa7ca5a5398 Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni: > On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > > >> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra > > > > > > done in bug 154120 . > > > > 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. Uhm, i tend to disagree. I think we should evaluate the situation, and if _we_ think it is the best to override Infra's descision, we can and should do it. A completely different thing is, what our evaluation leads to. I for one would like to take both Reply-To:-Munging and SPF on our agenda. My current thoughts re these topics is as following: - "Reply-To:-Munging": My vote: should stay as it currently is. Chris already pointed out how to modify the behaviour using procmail. - SPF: I currently don't understand what it is useful for in the current setup. I would appreciate if Kurt could write up a short text which explains why SPF is a good thing(TM) for Gentoo Infrastructure, so I can understand it :-) My vote would be: Remove, unless there is a real need for it. But this could change rather quickly once Kurt (or anybody else from Infra) has replied. Danny -- Danny van Dyk Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list