Re: [PATCH] fhandler/proc.cc(format_proc_cpuinfo): add Linux 6.1 cpuinfo

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna@vinschen.de>]

[Cc overseers, please see especially the end of this mail]

On Dec 19 15:37, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2022-12-19 02:13, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Dec 17 14:50, Brian Inglis wrote:
> > > On 2022-12-17 14:44, cygwin-patches-owner@cygwin.com wrote:
> > > > Your message has been rejected, probably because you are not
> > > > subscribed to the mailing list and the list's policy is to prohibit
> > > > non-members from posting to it.  If you think that your messages are
> > > > being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
> > > > cygwin-patches-owner@cygwin.com.
> 
> > > Please approve my ISP email address subscription as my ISP is now blocking aliases.
> 
> > You should be able to subscribe yourself with whatever address your ISP
> > requires:
> > 
> > 	https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin-patches/
> > 
> > I took a look into the cygwin-patches member list, and there's no
> > brian.inglis@... in there.  There are no other rules except you should be
> > subscribed.
> 
> If there is no Brian.Inglis@... there, my original email alias/-es have
> probably been unsubscribed because of ISP bounces or rejects.

There's a difference between being entirely unsubscribed and just
blocked due to bounces.  In theory, even with hard bounces, you get
disabled only after 5 days of bouncing, and then you get 3 mails to
inform you about this before your address gets entirely unsubscribed.

Also: Your address brian.inglis AT systematicsw.ab.ca is in the
cygwin-patches "List of non-member addresses whose postings should be
automatically accepted".  I added brian.inglis AT shaw.ca to this list.

For good measure I also added both addresses to the "List of addresses
(or regexps) whose subscriptions do not require approval".

> I sent that request because I got neither a confirmation email nor moderator
> approval, although it seems likely that my ISP blocked the confirmation
> email, as with all other Cygwin list posts.

The problem is usually not that you can't send mail, but that sware gets
bounces when trying to send mails to your account.

> As such it looks like I can no longer post to Cygwin lists using my
> maintainer email alias, nor get others, as in my ~/!email, confirmed, nor
> keep them subscribed, because of ISP bounces!
> 
> I also have a number of emails to Cygwin list owners awaiting moderation by
> postmaster-owner@sourceware.org.

I hope overseers can look into that.

I don't understand how your posts could end up at postmaster-owner.
They should have ended up at cygwin-patches-owner instead.

> I can upload packages but my posts to cygwin-announce/-* appear in
> public-inbox but not in the sourceware/cygwin archives as I am unsubscribed
> due to bounces!

I'll add your email addresses to the same cygwin-announce "lists of
addresses ..." as for cygwin-patches above.

@overseers, can you take a look into the below?

> Emails from newlib/...@sourceware.org and other domains do not seem to be
> getting blocked, while all from Cygwin.com are!
> 
> It may be that everything related to cygwin.* resolves to sourceware.org
> except the DNS is nsone.net and the ISP's outsourced milter cloudfilter.net
> does not like something about that.
> 
> The only other non-native domain hosted at sourceware.org is gcc.gnu.org and
> it resolves back to gnu.org:
> 
> $ host -a gcc.gnu.org
> Trying "gcc.gnu.org"
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 38584
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 6, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;gcc.gnu.org.                   IN      ANY
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> gcc.gnu.org.            182     IN      TXT     "v=spf1 a ?all"
> gcc.gnu.org.            182     IN      MX      10 eggs.gnu.org.
> gcc.gnu.org.            182     IN      MX      5 gcc.gnu.org.
> gcc.gnu.org.            182     IN      A       8.43.85.97
> gcc.gnu.org.            182     IN      SSHFP   1 1
> FBB1777C379FBD59D86E13984C91948A4F297CDE
> gcc.gnu.org.            182     IN      AAAA    2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c
> 
> Received 170 bytes from 64.59.135.148#53 in 32 ms
> $ host -a cygwin.com
> Trying "cygwin.com"
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6814
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;cygwin.com.                    IN      ANY
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> cygwin.com.             2630    IN      SOA     dns1.p01.nsone.net.
> hostmaster.nsone.net. 1669177740 200 7200 1209600 3600
> cygwin.com.             2630    IN      A       8.43.85.97
> cygwin.com.             2630    IN      MX      10 sourceware.org.
> 
> Received 139 bytes from 64.59.135.148#53 in 12 ms
> $ host -a nsone.net
> Trying "nsone.net"
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 47686
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;nsone.net.                     IN      ANY
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> nsone.net.              2941    IN      NSEC    \000.nsone.net. A NS SOA MX
> TXT AAAA RRSIG NSEC DNSKEY
> 
> Received 61 bytes from 64.59.135.148#53 in 14 ms

My cygwin.com info looks a bit different, but there are nsone.net
entries, too:

$ host -a cygwin.com
Trying "cygwin.com"
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 11763
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 8, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 6

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;cygwin.com.			IN	ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	MX	10 sourceware.org.
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	NS	dns4.p01.nsone.net.
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	NS	dns2.p01.nsone.net.
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	NS	dns3.p01.nsone.net.
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	NS	dns1.p01.nsone.net.
cygwin.com.		1026	IN	A	8.43.85.97
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	TXT	"v=spf1 a mx -all"
cygwin.com.		63712	IN	TXT	"00918568 domainadmin@redhat.com"

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
sourceware.org.		7054	IN	A	8.43.85.97
dns3.p01.nsone.net.	7414	IN	A	198.51.44.65
dns4.p01.nsone.net.	7414	IN	A	198.51.45.65
dns1.p01.nsone.net.	7414	IN	A	198.51.44.1
dns2.p01.nsone.net.	7414	IN	A	198.51.45.1
sourceware.org.		7054	IN	AAAA	2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c

Received 344 bytes from 192.168.129.6#53 in 1 ms

Is that all correct now, after the changes by Red Hat IT?


Thanks,
Corinna