From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12887 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2006 09:29:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 12877 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2006 09:29:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:29:02 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:28:59 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:28:58 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'zap splat blong'" Subject: RE: 1.5.19-4 & snapshot-20060529 : crash when freeing null std::string in dll (resend for attachment renaming) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <045f01c6855d$cfd47d60$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 On 31 May 2006 20:44, mwoehlke wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: >> On 31 May 2006 19:29, LenX wrote: >>> (resend for attachment renaming) >> >> That was completely stupid and pointless. You spammed the list with >> 500k of duplicate rubbish just because you wanted to change the names? >> That's really SOOOOooo worth it for everyone else. NOT! FCOL, why didn't >> you just send a short email listing the new names? > > In all fairness, he probably did that because he received a bounce > notification, just like I did when I posted a .bz2... not from the list, > but from the over-zealous AV filter of someone *subscribed to* the list > (say, I thought such bounces were supposed to go to the list admin, not > the list poster?). Yeh, but OTOH the whole thing was 99% binaries, which anyone interested could build themselves from the source, so it was a real department of redundancy department situation! > ...Meaning he failed to pay attention to where the e-mail came from and > did, as you noted, spam the list with another half MB of attachment. The > correct response would have been to a: ignore it (what I did), or b: > send a follow-up suggesting that anyone that didn't get the attachment > find it via the archives. That doesn't help all the people on dialup who already got it twice, though. At least I didn't reply to his post and inadvertently quote the entire tarball in uucode/b64 though. I've seen that happen! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....