Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni: > On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > > Alin Nastac napsal(a): > > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > >> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: > > >>> Mike Frysinger wrote: > > >>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to > > >>>> infra ? > > >>> > > >>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed > > >>> council had to be involved in this decision. > > >> > > >> 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.
I disagree here. Let's put both items on the agenda. That finalizes the decission. In regard to 'Reply-To:'-munging: I'm going to vote to keep it as is, and i don't think that anybody would be able to convince me otherwise. In regard to SPF: If klieber (or any other infra member) can explain to me why SPF is a good thing(tm) to have for Gentoo Infrastructure, and convince me that it is the best way to go, i'll vote to keep it. Otherwise, i'm going to vote to remove it. Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance! Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list