From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Feb 22 0: 0: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC4537C09F for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id AAA76605; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200002220800.AAA76605@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Rich Neswold Subject: Re: ports/16899: Update net/wmnet port... Reply-To: Rich Neswold Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/16899; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Rich Neswold To: Will Andrews Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/16899: Update net/wmnet port... Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 01:56:46 -0600 Wasn't 21-Feb-2000, at 10:44PM, when Will Andrews said: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:08:09PM -0600, rneswold@enteract.com wrote: > > -# Whom: Rich Neswold > > +# Whom: Rich Neswold > > I think that for historical reasons, the original email address should > be kept. But that's just my opinion.. :) You're probably right. I have two other ports that I need to update. I'll leave their header's email address alone. -- Rich Neswold http://www.enteract.com/~rneswold To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message