From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6093 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2002 07:00:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6080 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2002 07:00:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2002 07:00:39 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBT70PB11578; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:00:25 -0600 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 23:00:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200212290700.gBT70PB11578@duracef.shout.net> To: felix.1@canids.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gnu.gdb.bug X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 Felix Lee asks about gnu.gdb.bug: > yeah, so is there any reason for it to stay around? how > about just delete it, or delete mentions of it? If you look carefully, you will notice that the 'gnu.gdb.bug' newsgroup and 'bug-gdb' mailing list are administered by one entity, whereas the gdb bug database and the spam-protected 'gdb' mailing list are actually hosted on the web servers of a different entity. There is a nontrivial entity-entity relationship and that probably has a lot to do with the continued existence of the gnu.gdb.bug. I have been planning to volunteer to moderate gnu.gdb.bug. It's a mailman list, and it's easy to set up mailman lists so that all mail from people not on a whitelist must be approved before distribution. That kills the spam dead, at the cost of some latency before posts go out. Michael C