* Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-26 9:35 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
He contacted my directly, but as I'm not involved with the mailing lists
at all, could any of you please have a look?
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Presberg <David.Presberg@conexant.com>
To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: David.Presberg@conexant.com, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?
The most recent two "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" email postings (Digest ... Issue
675 and 676) came to me as concatenations of all the messages in the
digest. I have been subscribed (only) to the digest-form of that
list. I prefer the digest format with internal header details and
MIME "multipart/digest" designation. Is this a temporary glitch or a
permanent change? If the latter, where was it discussed?
-- Pres
- David L. Presberg, Software Engineer/Tools
- Conexant Systems/Maker Inc., 8 Technology Drive
- Westborough, MA 01581-1756, USA Phone: (508) 621-0680
- David.Presberg@conexant.com Nickname: Pres Fax: (508) 621-0605
- *** NOTE THAT ADDRESS, PHONES, AND EMAIL CHANGED, MARCH 2000 ***
DETAILS:
Note the headers from "gcc Digest 26 May 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Issue
676" as it arrived this morning. (I've omitted only the
"Received:"-header lines.):
Message-ID: <959338338.25965.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/26/2000 03:53:41 AM,
MIME-CD by Notes Server on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/26/2000 03:53:43 AM,
MIME-CD complete at 05/26/2000 03:53:44 AM,
Serialize by Router on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/26/2000 03:53:45 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dogbert.westboro.conexant.com id GAA27812
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: gcc Digest 26 May 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Issue 676
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:52:18 +0000
Compare the above with for instance"gcc Digest 23 May 2000 04:16:31
-0000 Issue 673" (properly a digest) which arrived Tuesday morning:
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: < mailto:gcc-digest-unsubscribe-presberg=maker.com@gcc.gnu.org >
List-Archive: < http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/ >
List-Post: < mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org >
List-Help: < http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/ >
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <959055391.2912.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: responder for gcc-digest@gcc.gnu.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/22/2000 09:18:11 PM,
Serialize by Router on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/22/2000 09:18:14 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/22/2000 09:18:14 PM
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary=pcjabjnaalncgapjlogj
From: gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.org
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: gcc Digest 23 May 2000 04:16:31 -0000 Issue 673
Date: 23 May 2000 04:16:31 -0000
I also note that the latest form loses the "List-Unsubscribe:" header
that is featured on http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html for the benefit
of the community.
[END]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2000-05-26 9:35 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2000-05-26 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
He contacted my directly, but as I'm not involved with the mailing lists
at all, could any of you please have a look?
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Presberg <David.Presberg@conexant.com>
To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: David.Presberg@conexant.com, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?
The most recent two "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" email postings (Digest ... Issue
675 and 676) came to me as concatenations of all the messages in the
digest. I have been subscribed (only) to the digest-form of that
list. I prefer the digest format with internal header details and
MIME "multipart/digest" designation. Is this a temporary glitch or a
permanent change? If the latter, where was it discussed?
-- Pres
- David L. Presberg, Software Engineer/Tools
- Conexant Systems/Maker Inc., 8 Technology Drive
- Westborough, MA 01581-1756, USA Phone: (508) 621-0680
- David.Presberg@conexant.com Nickname: Pres Fax: (508) 621-0605
- *** NOTE THAT ADDRESS, PHONES, AND EMAIL CHANGED, MARCH 2000 ***
DETAILS:
Note the headers from "gcc Digest 26 May 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Issue
676" as it arrived this morning. (I've omitted only the
"Received:"-header lines.):
Message-ID: <959338338.25965.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/26/2000 03:53:41 AM,
MIME-CD by Notes Server on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/26/2000 03:53:43 AM,
MIME-CD complete at 05/26/2000 03:53:44 AM,
Serialize by Router on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/26/2000 03:53:45 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dogbert.westboro.conexant.com id GAA27812
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: gcc Digest 26 May 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Issue 676
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:52:18 +0000
Compare the above with for instance"gcc Digest 23 May 2000 04:16:31
-0000 Issue 673" (properly a digest) which arrived Tuesday morning:
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: < mailto:gcc-digest-unsubscribe-presberg=maker.com@gcc.gnu.org >
List-Archive: < http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/ >
List-Post: < mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org >
List-Help: < http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/ >
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <959055391.2912.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: responder for gcc-digest@gcc.gnu.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/22/2000 09:18:11 PM,
Serialize by Router on NPBSMTP1/Server/Conexant(Release 5.0.3 |March 21, 2000) at
05/22/2000 09:18:14 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/22/2000 09:18:14 PM
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary=pcjabjnaalncgapjlogj
From: gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.org
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: gcc Digest 23 May 2000 04:16:31 -0000 Issue 673
Date: 23 May 2000 04:16:31 -0000
I also note that the latest form loses the "List-Unsubscribe:" header
that is featured on http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html for the benefit
of the community.
[END]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-26 9:35 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
2000-05-27 2:50 ` Jason Molenda
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jeffrey A Law
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Molenda @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: overseers
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.
Sorry I can't provide any better analysis on this one,
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
@ 2000-05-27 2:50 ` Jason Molenda
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jeffrey A Law
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Molenda @ 2000-05-27 2:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: overseers
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.
Sorry I can't provide any better analysis on this one,
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
2000-05-27 2:50 ` Jason Molenda
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jeffrey A Law
2000-05-28 11:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Molenda; +Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, overseers
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 2000-05-28 11:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 2000-05-28 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Molenda; +Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, overseers
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-12-30 6:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-12-30 6:08 Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-26 9:35 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
2000-05-27 2:50 ` Jason Molenda
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jeffrey A Law
2000-05-28 11:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).