Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:40:10 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interrupt storm with shared interrupt on digi(4) Message-ID: <20080605174010.GH48790@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200806051051.05495.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20080603070840.GH1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200806041044.01712.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080605061931.GF48790@elvis.mu.org> <200806051051.05495.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> [080605 07:58] wrote: > On Thursday 05 June 2008 02:19:31 am Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> [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? > > That was my request (and I found at least 2 other open bugs for the same issue > when I looked again yesterday). The developers reply was "an option is not an > option". Did you try sending him email with forged headers a few times with List-Id set to something embarassing? What's his email? I'll do it. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080605174010.GH48790>