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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
