From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6542 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 18:51:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 6535 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 18:51:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from c-24-61-23-223.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (HELO cgf.cx) (24.61.23.223) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:51:31 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 1492413C0FD; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:51:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:32:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: overseers@sources.redhat.com, mrs@apple.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Target processor detection Message-ID: <20051118185130.GA22884@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: overseers@sources.redhat.com, mrs@apple.com References: <009f01c5ec3a$ee023eb0$df0a0a0a@piotrw> <6904F90B-D77C-4A08-984C-F5D5A5DC597F@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:02:20AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >Mike Stump writes: > >> Do we have any policy on very long and annoying signatures? Should we? > >We don't have a policy on long and annoying signatures, but we do have >a policy on signatures like this one which prohibit disseminating the >information. They are prohibited, as described on > http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html > >When I feel like it, I reply suggesting the use of a free e-mail web >based e-mail account instead. > >There has been some discussion of detecting these and blocking them >automatically, but it has not been implemented. We could block email that contains the phrase: "This email [a-z\s]* (?:is|are) confidential" Should I add this? I haven't done this before because this will be flagged as spam when it isn't strictly spam and that could cause confusion. cgf