From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 06:35:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F021065677 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:35:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A5C8FC12 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:35:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 374DE1A4D83; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:19:31 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20080605061931.GF48790@elvis.mu.org> References: <20080603070840.GH1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200806031021.35416.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080603190418.GP1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200806041044.01712.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806041044.01712.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:35:39 -0000 * John Baldwin [080604 11:12] wrote: > On Tuesday 03 June 2008 03:04:18 pm Peter Jeremy wrote: > > BTW, your MUA's list-reply configuration don't recognize that > > freebsd-stable@ and stable@ are aliases. > > Yes, kmail is broken and the authors refuse to fix it. It happens on reply to > a foo@ e-mail (it changes the 'To' to 'freebsd-foo@' because of the List-Id > header and leaves foo@ in the 'CC' field). Note that there isn't anything in > the List headers that says that foo@ is an alias for freebsd-foo@. I just > wish I could turn off the List-Id crap and use plain old reply-to-all, but > that is where the kmail developers disagree. wtf.....why not just have a checkbox to toggle the behavior? -- - Alfred Perlstein