[MAILER-DAEMON@sources.redhat.com] failure notice

[MAILER-DAEMON@sources.redhat.com] failure notice

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 358 bytes --]


Hi,

  I've just discovered by the GCC mailing lists servers are using
"aggressive" filter to block spams.  I've been listed as a spammer
(see below) according to spamcop.net.  I went to the link included in
mail 

  http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=62.212.99.186

and discovered:


     62.212.99.186 is listed, but should not be.


-- Gaby  



[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4891 bytes --]

From: MAILER-DAEMON@sources.redhat.com
To: gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Subject: failure notice
Date: 7 Feb 2003 21:46:05 -0000
Message-ID: <REFOR3b4djKMQzfyBXm00008ddf@eforward3.enom.com>

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sources.redhat.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>:
In an effort to cut down on our spam intake, we block email that is listed
by certain open-relay tracking services. Unfortunately you may have just
discovered the hard way that sometimes non-spam mail gets caught
accidentally.  In most cases you can clear this up by an upgrade to your
mail server or sometimes by getting an erroneous listing removed.
For more information about our use of these lists, see
  
    http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbls
  
The IP number that I am denying mail from is 62.212.99.186
The list that you are on is SpamCop.  See:
  
    http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?62.212.99.186
  
for more information about this list and why you are on it.
 
 
If you are not actually a "spammer", you can add yourself to
the gcc.gnu.org "global allow list" by sending email
*from*the*blocked*email*address* to:
  
    global-allow-subscribe-gdr=integrable-solutions.net@gcc.gnu.org
 
This will enable you to send email without being subjected to
further spam blocking.
  
If you are actually a spammer then you should think long and hard
about the people you are inconveniencing and come to the conclusion
that what you are doing is both highly annoying and immoral.
 
Contact gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org if you have questions about this. (#5.7.2)

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Received: (qmail 24590 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2003 21:46:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 7 Feb 2003 21:46:04 -0000
Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h17LjRH2002181;
	Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:45:27 +0100
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h17LjQDV002180;
	Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:45:26 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
Sender: gdr@integrable-solutions.net
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Document pitfalls of two-stage name lookup, next revision
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302071522450.12710-100000@gandalf.ticam.utexas.edu>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302071522450.12710-100000@gandalf.ticam.utexas.edu>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: 07 Feb 2003 22:45:26 +0100
Message-ID: <m3adh7bw95.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Lines: 24
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> writes:

| In a sense we're both poking into the dark somehow, second guessing what a 

Being precise about terms isn't "seconding guessing".

| programmer without much experience in C++ would or would not find 
| confusing. We're both in a sense language lawyers, so the best would be to 
| take a poll among said group. For the meantime...

I think you should be careful about not confusing "being precise about
the names of things" and being a "language lawyer".  I don't assume that
most (C++) programmers will have the C++ standard as their first
book.  However, most programmers will have access to modern C++ texts,
which try not to create confusion.  

[...]

| 2003-02-07 Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
| 	* doc/trouble.texi: Document pitfalls of two-stage name lookup

OK.

-- Gaby


[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 53 bytes --]



-- 
Gabriel Dos Reis,	gdr@integrable-solutions.net