Re: Bug#23000: Bug Terrorism

Some time around Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:21:08 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Scott Ellis wrote: > > No, you're not hiding this on the bug tracking system any more. > > Neither are you. > > > The reason that sendmail broke is that you made a DELIBERATE modification > > to procmail that

Re: Bug Terrorism

Brian White wrote: > severity 23000 normal > -- > > > The reason that sendmail broke is that you made a DELIBERATE modification > > to procmail that sendmail wasn't expecting. While I agree that sendmail > > should probably be more graceful about handling it, it is not a > > release-critical erro

Re: Bug Terrorism

Scott Ellis wrote: > No, you're not hiding this on the bug tracking system any more. Neither are you. > The reason that sendmail broke is that you made a DELIBERATE modification > to procmail that sendmail wasn't expecting. While I agree that sendmail That's just simply true. If you have a sho

Re: Bug Terrorism

severity 23000 normal -- > The reason that sendmail broke is that you made a DELIBERATE modification > to procmail that sendmail wasn't expecting. While I agree that sendmail > should probably be more graceful about handling it, it is not a > release-critical error. A vast majority of people (li

Re: Bug Terrorism

Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, you're not hiding this on the bug tracking system any more. > Come on, cool down! That´s a bad way to get this resolved. Please DON´T do that again. I think -private would have been more apropriate. I know everybody is getting nervous in this deep f

Bug Terrorism

No, you're not hiding this on the bug tracking system any more. The reason that sendmail broke is that you made a DELIBERATE modification to procmail that sendmail wasn't expecting. While I agree that sendmail should probably be more graceful about handling it, it is not a release-critical error.