Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

[Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>]

On 4/2/20 11:48 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> writes:
>> On 4/2/20 11:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> writes:
>>>> On 4/1/20 8:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/20 4:27 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/20 4:16 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> marc.info is an independent site that is not associated with
>>>>>>> sourceware.org.  We don't control it.  If you have questions about their
>>>>>>> site then ask them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mailing list software is all easily discernible by investigating
>>>>>>> email headers and via google but someone else answered your questions
>>>>>>> later in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But don't you think that we change something in 6.3 to make them break.
>>>>>> like no longer sending updates, or something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you have any idea what changed on our side?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean what should I tell them they should do to fix that?????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, marc.info is fixed, it turned out that the messages were just Quarantined
>>>>> because due to the change in the ip adresses, mailing software etc.
>>>>> marc.info was under the impression that all these messages were just spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is what they told me:
>>>>>
>>>>> "For lists that often get spammed, we set up some silent header-checks
>>>>> so that mails that don't look like they came from the real listserver
>>>>> get quarrantined, and don't appear when viewing that list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that can break when mailing list software changes - like when they
>>>>> switched away from ezmlm to Mailman.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've updated our filter check and un-quarrantined about 4500 mails to
>>>>> various gcc- lists that landed there this month."
>>>>>
>>>>> So indeed all our mailing list message are again on marc.info,
>>>>> I think when it can handle lkml it can handle gcc-patches as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many Thanks go to Hank Leininger who does a gread job with marc.info.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernd.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists
>>>> that must be fixed by our overseers.
>>>>
>>>> That is the scubbed attachments.
>>>>
>>>> As an example please look at this one:
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you see this:
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> Name: 0001-Fix-range-end-handling-of-inlined-subroutines.patch
>>>> Type: text/x-patch
>>>> Size: 10992 bytes
>>>> Desc: not available
>>>> URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20200313/5158bb87/attachment.bin>
>>>>
>>>> So there are two serious problems here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. there is a single point of failure, if sourceware.org goes down the attachment is lost.
>>>>
>>>> 2. since the url is http: a man in the middle can impersonate sourceware.org and give you a
>>>> virus instead of my patch file.
>>>> It does not help that sourceware.org redirects the download to https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20200313/5158bb87/attachment.bin
>>>> an attacker will not be so polite to do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @overseeers: PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY THAT SCRUBBING
>>>>
>>>> can you act now, or do you need a CVE number first ?
>>>
>>> The overseers are reachable on:
>>>
>>>   https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/overseers
>>>
>>> Please keep the tone civil.  I hope we never see the day where the GCC/
>>> sourceware lists have to have a code of conduct, but if we did, I think
>>> some of the messages on this thread would have breached it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard
>>>
>> Thanks, for reminding me.
>>
>> I do personally full-heatedly apologize, and regret what I said above.
>>
>> I am sorry if I made you feel bad.  That was not the true intention of what
>> I said.
>>
>>
>> I asked Hank Leininger for clarification how mark.info subscribes the mails,
>> and what data he gets exactly from us.
>>
>> I am still waiting for his response, and let you know what he says.
>>
>> In the meantime, culd you please change http: to https:
> 
> Just in case: I'm not actually an overseer myself, but I can see how
> my message could give that impression.  I think the request would be
> better sent to the overseers list, if you haven't already
> 
> Sorry for the confusion :-)
> 
> Richard
> 

No problem, I know who you are.

I did add CC: overseeers@sourceware.org this time.
Every time I hit reply-to-all the overseeer are not in the 
list I use thunderbird here, and someting on their e-mail address
is so bogus that thunderbird does not want to send them mails.

By the way instead of using the "please use the list"
in angle brackets, which I never look at, I look only
at the name.  I would suggest you just use your name
and overseeers@sourceware.org if you prefer, or something
that is quarantined, until you can look at it if it is
a personal mail or something of general interest.

But if I write a mail I spend a lot of time for it,
and if it bounces, that work is lost.  This makes
a bad start, and the first impression usually decides
a lot in our lives.


Thanks
Bernd.