Dave Korn wrote on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:20 PM: [snip]
> So basically what you've done is say to yourself "I'll just > send tons and tons of stuff (which I know will be of no use > or interest to 99.9% of the recipients) to absolutely > everyone in the hopes that it might be relevant to even just > one or two people." > > That's the same approach that spammers take. It's just plain wrong. Well, this *is* the list for reporting problems with Cygwin. Sorry, that I missed among all the other 450 mail per month, the one Chris stated, that he don't want straces sent to list without further asking. Look, if I'd only sent a mail to the list stating that scp is sometimes failing without further information, you'd only reply with a link anyway. So I did my best to find at least a case to repeat the problem in a simpler environment and sent all information I can provide. Just stop your uber-teacher mode for a moment. What actions would *you* take to isolate the problem in a better way? What other useful information shall I provide to enable Chris or Pierre or someone else to have a critical look at the recent changes in the relevant fork()/pipe code? > However we're getting way OT It's you, who always snip the informational part. >, so if you want to discuss > this further, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside. > While flapping your arms and clucking like a chicken. >> Sure. How about 200k of unintelligible gibberish? I'm >> sure we'd all _love_ to see it. > TITTTL! No. Have better ways to waste my time. We don't seem to have common ground for standard communication anyway. My questions are still technical and on-topic. - Jörg -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
