From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8688D3858D20 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 08:49:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8688D3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=vinschen.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=vinschen.de Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([24.134.7.25]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue010 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MAflI-1p0vXP0oky-00B13L; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:49:39 +0100 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id A1364A8078A; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:49:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:49:37 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Brian Inglis Cc: Brian Inglis , overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fhandler/proc.cc(format_proc_cpuinfo): add Linux 6.1 cpuinfo Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Brian Inglis , Brian Inglis , overseers@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:5PuFfpvR398Xa9I5RxPSs9EKWhzaKs8pq5Hjg45GOh8ipx3p3J2 QslqSixt3+qE7NDulzTNmsTtFAYDUkF86Rrf2oRtYMCCZnEgOdkTfODAW4ijcurswtzn1r2 khOr+rVXoBACL1k5SBbvJ9MbV4jwrdplLxeMiUf8aIeUicX+HFxi1aWTmttWE7i+WeQAXni RDD/VAXs3aNY9CM4wZwjg== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:oHdl8lHMcII=;WWuE46oi4Jr93JshcQfiIRRpsmc v9gDzSxnT1LF0lcVUEILGWymGWv1sRXdp8QiUxWNIoQAtBL04mCkaxQlbhMpeaO21JW6Op9Wb DEYL9xnS95kCxaRTGgxQ4roe3SuQCKcgcR8lj2c2kZVhG8pVoF/AyMMoAK5MGEGCRbIUSeFCR nEJdA3++w8/QTV3MCrvuKnFtMG0Yj9F0noYxrFvFSvaEiyIdNJXkA+49mKSdkI1mYqw+T39sM MczAW3uc+owL4EdqgsO12/LyCLYoUnPW8Dz8qfPERsRmR93w+AUQuHnaXHHyiu7Ii0yE+qY3u l6akdjacZwUjbPcdJ6dDJ7nxeSJuDcrxgFBAWhQB1GXYHREeMWNzJelBblATNfo2iLXwZSc3T +94hULLv7J8te+ToByQxEpD6f4EplKinRPyv/ZU8zn717qXS1bwzatHo1q9iwoV6LFAD0CMO0 i5mRUBu0myBR69LS92LeZCRtKGgq91ohe2ptzMZelZDPbRYm1SJyIql8OBP4ZirgBYK/k9p0W izwKbfBBOPFGS3IX6ERXd5G7fTIY/MeLGxaLcocIx83/z0+rXUpJVnfx+jV82Fco6wjE6cxLi vbuOhJ6Cbi9AAKqhZzs3StcmNK+ko5W6DBPhS8vadxQKS696IZ56MS9eMHXCnRXPiuyA7QXgK t5clJUkM09XrZ158Oyu0gn8rppeR0NlszWkfR4PNzw== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: [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