From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A046386F83F for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:47:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6A046386F83F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eliz@gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jeCK7-0001lT-J0; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:47:27 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4429 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jeCK7-0002PA-13; Thu, 28 May 2020 02:47:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:47:18 +0300 Message-Id: <83eer4sgi1.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jonny Grant Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <954fafa3-158a-6e5c-0724-984d42785760@jguk.org> (message from Jonny Grant on Wed, 27 May 2020 23:26:26 +0100) Subject: Re: http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gdb/ down References: <43ae98ef-54f1-8cd3-1183-ad33ba6dec27@simark.ca> <3a66feb1-686f-d0c0-7124-ca3887b52507@jguk.org> <954fafa3-158a-6e5c-0724-984d42785760@jguk.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_MXURI, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 06:47:29 -0000 > From: Jonny Grant > Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 23:26:26 +0100 > > My apologies, correct version of the patch attached. What was wrong with the previous version, and why this one is better? I'm probably missing something, but it sounds to me like an explicit 'mailto:' is better?