From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 06:48:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DE1106566B; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDA08FC12; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:48:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id JAA15410; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:48:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OtxPj-0008Ca-6I; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:48:47 +0300 Message-ID: <4C89D4CD.7000301@icyb.net.ua> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:48:45 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100822 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <201009081055.o88Atvu8050938@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20100908130700.GA53378@mail.hs.ntnu.edu.tw> <201009081439.o88EdHwh064108@lava.sentex.ca> <4C89663D.5050007@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C89663D.5050007@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:48:50 -0000 on 10/09/2010 01:57 Doug Barton said the following: > On 9/8/2010 7:39 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: >> Perhaps as an interim measure a local procmail rule to filter out cvsup >> failures from going to the list ? > > That's a particularly unhelpful response. Not only is it borderline rude to > attempt to shift the responsibility for this to the users, it's a violation of > the robustness principle. My impression that the suggestion was to do the filtering on the sending end, not the recipients' end. -- Andriy Gapon