From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1868 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2003 16:33:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1861 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 16:33:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (66.187.230.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 16:33:55 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id BD1136BD12; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:33:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:33:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Andrew Cagney Cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: failure notice] Message-ID: <20031118163354.GE21160@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , overseers@sources.redhat.com References: <200311180747.hAI7lK8I029659@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <3FBA2F76.9040908@redhat.com> <20031118161601.GC21160@redhat.com> <3FBA4772.1040300@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FBA4772.1040300@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q4/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:23:14AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: >>I get that all the time. This: >>> >>>"Sorry, I've been told to reject your posts." >>> >>>I believe is new? >> >> >>Something in the From or in the Sender was in the global deny list. The >>global deny list contains a list of email addresses from which we do not >>accept email. I put anyone who sends spam into that list. I see the >>block but I don't understand why it happened since >>cagney-BLAH-gnu-BLAH-org is not in the deny list. The only thing that I >>can see that is gdb related that is in the global deny list is: >>bug-gdb-BLAH-prep-BLAH-ai-BLAH-mit-BLAH-edu . > >>This is weird, though, because one message was blocked and another made >>it through 21 seconds later from the same user and the same IP address. >>So, unless you can explain what the difference is between the two messages >>this may have to remain a mystery. > >No idea. > >I since added myself to the white list. "cagney redhat com" has been on the white list since 2003-03-25. "cagney gnu org" isn't in the white list but it's not in the black list either and, AFAICT, it never has been. It looks like "cagney gnu org" was mentioned in the header. But, it's still a mystery as to why it was blocked. cgf