False positive in spam-rejection

False positive in spam-rejection

[Gerald Pfeifer]

I've got _no_ idea what might have been so bad

  <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>:
  Sorry, something in the body of your message was flagged as indicative of spam.
  Please change your message and try again.

about the following mail of mine (except that the DNS resolver on the
gcc.gnu.org box doesn't seem to work properly).

Is there a bug with the spam detection feature?

Gerald

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Received: (qmail 2392 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2003 12:20:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2003 12:20:08 -0000
Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60])
	by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D1C5313789; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:20:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:20:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>,
	Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Mention cgraph stuff in news/changes?
In-Reply-To: <1058094303.11314.3.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.56.0307131415460.7940@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
References: <1058094303.11314.3.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Gerald has said he would like to see big changes mentioned on the web.
> Assuming the cgraph work is worth mentioning, how about this?

The changes.html part looks fine, thanks!

Concerning the announcement on the main page, Jan is on holidays now,
and Andreas, Jan, and myself had planned to create a page under news/
with more details on this aspect of Jan's work after his return, so I'd
hold of that one (for now).

Thanks for bringing this up!

Gerald

+ This will be enabled by default at <code>-O3</code> in the GCC 3.4
+ release.

This I'd shorten to "This will be enabled at <code>-O3</code> in GCC 3.4".