From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24928 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2007 00:03:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 24886 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2007 00:03:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-24.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO ednor.cgf.cx) (71.248.179.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:03:29 +0000 Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 3D3512B352; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:03:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: dewar@adacore.com, Ian Lance Taylor , b07584@freescale.com, rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org, jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Posting from work/university addresses Message-ID: <20070805000352.GA11072@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: dewar@adacore.com, Ian Lance Taylor , b07584@freescale.com, rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org, jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii References: <46B2101F.6060305@adacore.com> <20070802183431.GA6833@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20070803231205.GB11438@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:48PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>From: Ian Lance Taylor >>Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700 >> >>As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb, > >No, that's not it. My problem is that I don't see the motivation for >rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere. The URL you mentioned >_advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues >involved here, which are not explained anywhere. Actually, the words politely requires that confidentiality notices not be included. Since that was the best we could do until recently we relied, unsuccessfully, on people to do the right thing. I've been promising people for years that I'd modify the spam software enforce the policy and a recent discussion on the gcc channel prodded me into taking action. >>we're free software volunteers just like you. We're on your side. We >>won't do anything dumb. > >Isn't this a matter of policy of Red Hat (or some other organization)? >I do trust you, but I don't know about organizations. AFAIK, this has nothing to do with Red Hat. cgf