From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA3C385B833 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 15:19:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6EA3C385B833 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx 31BB2407DF X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 spammy=H*r:unknown, H*M:cgf, consider, H*ce:8bit Received: by cgf.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:19:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:19:18 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: Overseers mailing list Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Tobias Burnus Subject: Re: text/x-* attachments stripped (was: Re: gcc ML archive: text/x-patch attachments no longer shown inline (was:Re: Mailing list stripping off attachments)) Message-ID: <20200403151918.GA10004@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Overseers mailing list , Jakub Jelinek , Tobias Burnus References: <3f4869fd-d852-a8a6-117f-e767a417ff95@codesourcery.com> <8d833f8d-243f-e8b8-69ed-124ef33b7746@codesourcery.com> <20200309102520.GQ2156@tucnak> <69bd8396-1e11-6b87-18f2-658fd171ebc2@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <69bd8396-1e11-6b87-18f2-658fd171ebc2@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1162.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_SOFTFAIL, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-BeenThere: overseers@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Overseers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:19:21 -0000 [non-overseers mailing lists dropped] On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 04:29:51PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >I agree with Jakub that the listed feature were nicer about the >previous mail list archiver. On the other hand, I agree that we want >to use something more recent that is support and under some >development. That said, we did we decide to use mailman-2.1 which is a >legacy release that can be shortly out of support? Have you consider >using version 3.3.0? Yes, we have. Check the overseers archives for past discussions about the topic. Short answer: We're trying to go with only RHEL available packages and as few local modifications as possible.