From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14422 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2004 18:18:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14407 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2004 18:18:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2004 18:18:10 -0000 Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FF813792; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:18:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:18:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Christopher Faylor Cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices In-Reply-To: <20040128180824.GH25439@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20040128161742.GB25439@redhat.com> <20040128180824.GH25439@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-q1/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html has >> [...] > That's great wording. I'm going to put it in the sources.redhat.com > page, too. Hope that's ok. I believe the wording is due to Joe Buck, and it's definitely okay to reuse it. >>> Once we do that, I could easily start bouncing messages which contain >>> confidentiality trailers. FWIW, I really hate them. > Should we get a steering committee vote on this? To be on the safe side, I just sent a message asking whether there are any objections. I'm curious how RMS is going to respond -- he might actually love the idea! Gerald