On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 03:24:44PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 15:14:47 2009]:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 14:01:15 2009]:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Va
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 03:24:44PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 15:14:47 2009]:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 14:01:15 2009]:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Va
> [beuc - Tue Feb 03 15:14:47 2009]:
>
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 14:01:15 2009]:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > > > [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
> > > > >
> > >
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 14:01:15 2009]:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > > [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
> > > >
> > > > > > and added them to the aliases on monty python.
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > [beuc - Tue Feb 03 14:01:15 2009]:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > > [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
> > > >
> > > > > > and added them to the aliases on monty python.
> [beuc - Tue Feb 03 14:01:15 2009]:
>
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
> > >
> > > > > and added them to the aliases on monty python. Now, the
> downside
> > of this
> > > > > is that you can no longer add entries to
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
> >
> > > > and added them to the aliases on monty python. Now, the downside
> of this
> > > > is that you can no longer add entries to this file. If you want to be
> > > > able to edit it
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58:32PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
> >
> > > > and added them to the aliases on monty python. Now, the downside
> of this
> > > > is that you can no longer add entries to this file. If you want to be
> > > > able to edit it
> [beuc - Sat Jan 17 05:38:06 2009]:
>
> > > and added them to the aliases on monty python. Now, the downside
of this
> > > is that you can no longer add entries to this file. If you want to be
> > > able to edit it, we could set up a cron job that rsyncs it off a place
> > > on savannah somewhere
> > and added them to the aliases on monty python. Now, the downside of this
> > is that you can no longer add entries to this file. If you want to be
> > able to edit it, we could set up a cron job that rsyncs it off a place
> > on savannah somewhere, if you like.
>
> That would be nice, yes.
> H
> > and added them to the aliases on monty python. Now, the downside of this
> > is that you can no longer add entries to this file. If you want to be
> > able to edit it, we could set up a cron job that rsyncs it off a place
> > on savannah somewhere, if you like.
>
> That would be nice, yes.
> H
Hi,
> > I'm afraid this broke a number of aliases, in particular
> > www-d...@savannah.gnu.org and invalid.nore...@savannah.gnu.org which,
> > if they don't receive mail, need to be valid senders.
> >
> > Check /com/mailer/aliases.
> >
> > Mails were bounced because of this.
> > Please revert th
Hi,
> > I'm afraid this broke a number of aliases, in particular
> > www-d...@savannah.gnu.org and invalid.nore...@savannah.gnu.org which,
> > if they don't receive mail, need to be valid senders.
> >
> > Check /com/mailer/aliases.
> >
> > Mails were bounced because of this.
> > Please revert th
> [beuc - Mon Jan 12 01:27:22 2009]:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 03:46:25PM -0500, Ward Vandewege via RT wrote:
> > > [peabo - Tue Dec 30 17:02:17 2008]:
> > >
> > > This appears to be fixed (perhaps not in the most elegant way,
since it
> > > might be nicer to route the message to the
> [peabo - Tue Dec 30 17:02:17 2008]:
>
> This appears to be fixed (perhaps not in the most elegant way, since it
> might be nicer to route the message to the bit bucket; right now it
> generates a bounce to the sender).
I've fixed this properly by removing the fallback to fencepost for
@savannah
15 matches
Mail list logo