gcc-patches: Spam filter?

gcc-patches: Spam filter?

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]

Hi!

In July, I discussed the problem of re-encoding PGP-MIME messages (which may
break signatures.)  Yesterday, it seems one of my emails didn't get through
some (spam?) filter at all.

  The email contained a largeish patch to GCC's MAINTAINERS file, thus
the patch contained a large number of email addresses, which I guess
may have triggered something.

  Subject was "[PATCH] Put all MAINTAINERS email addresses into <...>", and
regarding my mailserver's log files, it went out of my box without a problem:

Sep 23 10:15:49 lug-owl postfix/pickup[2144]: 95444F0251: uid=1001 from=<jbglaw>
Sep 23 10:15:49 lug-owl postfix/cleanup[9286]: 95444F0251: message-id=<20140923081537.GF4144@lug-owl.de>
Sep 23 10:15:49 lug-owl postfix/qmgr[3706]: 95444F0251: from=<jbglaw@lug-owl.de>, size=53311, nrcpt=2 (queue active)
Sep 23 10:15:59 lug-owl postfix/smtp[10267]: 95444F0251: to=<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, relay=gcc.gnu.org[209.132.180.131]:25, delay=10, delays=0.48/0.01/2.6/7, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 Queued! 1411460159 qp 24525 <20140923081537.GF4144@lug-owl.de>)
Sep 23 10:16:06 lug-owl postfix/smtp[10268]: 95444F0251: to=<law@redhat.com>, relay=mx1.redhat.com[209.132.183.28]:25, delay=18, delays=0.48/0.02/1.9/15, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 s8N8FoYg007644 Message accepted for delivery)
Sep 23 10:16:06 lug-owl postfix/qmgr[3706]: 95444F0251: removed



Any hint where it actually was thrown away, and how to work around it?

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: gcc-patches: Spam filter?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:31:02PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>Hi!
>
>In July, I discussed the problem of re-encoding PGP-MIME messages (which may
>break signatures.)  Yesterday, it seems one of my emails didn't get through
>some (spam?) filter at all.

It's hard to say why you would have been blocked without the original email
but I've super-whitelisted you so you should now bypass all spam checking
(except for html-based email).

If you still have the original email, I wouldn't mind seeing it, If you
can gzip it and send it here

Re: gcc-patches: Spam filter?

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]

On Wed, 2014-09-24 14:13:25 -0400, Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:31:02PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > In July, I discussed the problem of re-encoding PGP-MIME messages
> > (which may break signatures.)  Yesterday, it seems one of my
> > emails didn't get through some (spam?) filter at all.
> 
> It's hard to say why you would have been blocked without the
> original email but I've super-whitelisted you so you should now
> bypass all spam checking (except for html-based email).
> 
> If you still have the original email, I wouldn't mind seeing it, If
> you can gzip it and send it here

Sure, it's properly saved. I'll attach it to this email and re-send it
later on.

Thanks for the help,
  Jan-Benedict

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:         "really soon now":      an unspecified period of time, likly to
the second  :                                 be greater than any reasonable definition
                                              of "soon".

[-- Attachment #1.2: MAINTAINERS-patch.mbox.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 14386 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]