From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Jason Molenda Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <1590.959536278@upchuck> References: <20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00596.html In message < 20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com >you write: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 06:34:58PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > He contacted my directly, but as I'm not involved with the mailing lists > > at all, could any of you please have a look? > > I doubt anyone was changing ezmlm at this level recently - I'm the > only one who has really delved into the gory details of ezmlm and > I know I haven't touched it in several months. Unless Jeff was > tweaking one of the gcc lists somehow recently, I can't offer any > explanation about why the digest function would behave differently > from how it normally behaves. I certainly haven't been tweaking them in any way. Weird. jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Jason Molenda Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 11:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1590.959536278@upchuck> References: <20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q2/msg00289.html Message-ID: <20000528110200.B0nOkFSe3DaGq5R0OO800uSWKu2BFA-myUapVNpE-24@z> In message < 20000527025014.A10144@shell17.ba.best.com >you write: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 06:34:58PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > He contacted my directly, but as I'm not involved with the mailing lists > > at all, could any of you please have a look? > > I doubt anyone was changing ezmlm at this level recently - I'm the > only one who has really delved into the gory details of ezmlm and > I know I haven't touched it in several months. Unless Jeff was > tweaking one of the gcc lists somehow recently, I can't offer any > explanation about why the digest function would behave differently > from how it normally behaves. I certainly haven't been tweaking them in any way. Weird. jeff