Quoting Loïc Minier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Wed, Nov 01, 2006, Tobias Toedter wrote: > > as I understand it, there is a subtle difference between the [EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note the additional .qa-part!) mail aliases. > > Ah, of course! Thanks a lot for the explanations. This would explain > why I didn't get any of Christian's messages, only the final one which > is Cc:ed to a bug.
Hmm, OK. I'll send messages to <package>@packages.qa.d.o now. This seems to give better chances to reach the real maintainer(s). As I'm doing this with mutt and my mutt is set to use the needed X-PTS-Approved header, that should be OK. Indeed, only the first one was sent to <package>@packages.d.o...The second one (announce of the NMU) is indeed sent to the oldest l10n bug report
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
