From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jun 19 16:02:49 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA01473 for current-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (root@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA01456 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 16:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from campa.panke.de (anonymous224.ppp.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.224]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29971; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:42:56 +0200 Received: (from wosch@localhost) by campa.panke.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00578; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:31:41 +0200 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 00:31:41 +0200 From: Wolfram Schneider Message-Id: <199606192231.AAA00578@campa.panke.de> To: Chuck Robey Cc: FreeBSD current Subject: When gcc-2.7.2 hits ctm In-Reply-To: References: Reply-to: Wolfram Schneider MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I completely agree! The mailbombs cost me real money. If FreeBSD continued sending mailbombs I will unsubscribe ctm-cvs. Wolfram Chuck Robey writes: >Twice recently I have had ctm mailbomb me with big updates, and I guess >everyone else who uses ctm has had that happen too. My mail capacity was >big engough to manage, but I'm just a little worried about the near >future. If some care isn't taken, when the new gcc gets imported into >current, well, gcc is big enough to overflow probably everyone's mailbox, >no matter what size each individual ctm update is limited to. > >I just hope that ctm is taken into account, when gcc is brought up to >2.7.2, else there's gonna me one enormous mail snafu. There's several >different ways to handle this, I don't care how it's finally decided, I >just don't want ctm trying to send me 25 megabytes of mail all in one day.