On 4/2/20 11:48 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> writes: >> On 4/2/20 11:01 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> writes: >>>> On 4/1/20 8:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>>>> On 3/26/20 4:27 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>>>>> On 3/26/20 4:16 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> marc.info is an independent site that is not associated with >>>>>>> sourceware.org. We don't control it. If you have questions about their >>>>>>> site then ask them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The mailing list software is all easily discernible by investigating >>>>>>> email headers and via google but someone else answered your questions >>>>>>> later in this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But don't you think that we change something in 6.3 to make them break. >>>>>> like no longer sending updates, or something? >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't you have any idea what changed on our side? >>>>>> >>>>>> I mean what should I tell them they should do to fix that????? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, marc.info is fixed, it turned out that the messages were just >>>>> Quarantined >>>>> because due to the change in the ip adresses, mailing software etc. >>>>> marc.info was under the impression that all these messages were just spam. >>>>> >>>>> That is what they told me: >>>>> >>>>> "For lists that often get spammed, we set up some silent header-checks >>>>> so that mails that don't look like they came from the real listserver >>>>> get quarrantined, and don't appear when viewing that list. >>>>> >>>>> Well, that can break when mailing list software changes - like when they >>>>> switched away from ezmlm to Mailman. >>>>> >>>>> I've updated our filter check and un-quarrantined about 4500 mails to >>>>> various gcc- lists that landed there this month." >>>>> >>>>> So indeed all our mailing list message are again on marc.info, >>>>> I think when it can handle lkml it can handle gcc-patches as well. >>>>> >>>>> Many Thanks go to Hank Leininger who does a gread job with marc.info. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bernd. >>>>> >>>> >>>> PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists >>>> that must be fixed by our overseers. >>>> >>>> That is the scubbed attachments. >>>> >>>> As an example please look at this one: >>>> https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches&m=158571308379946&w=2 >>>> >>>> >>>> you see this: >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >>>> Name: 0001-Fix-range-end-handling-of-inlined-subroutines.patch >>>> Type: text/x-patch >>>> Size: 10992 bytes >>>> Desc: not available >>>> URL: >>>> <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20200313/5158bb87/attachment.bin> >>>> >>>> So there are two serious problems here: >>>> >>>> 1. there is a single point of failure, if sourceware.org goes down the >>>> attachment is lost. >>>> >>>> 2. since the url is http: a man in the middle can impersonate >>>> sourceware.org and give you a >>>> virus instead of my patch file. >>>> It does not help that sourceware.org redirects the download to >>>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20200313/5158bb87/attachment.bin >>>> an attacker will not be so polite to do that. >>>> >>>> >>>> @overseeers: PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY THAT SCRUBBING >>>> >>>> can you act now, or do you need a CVE number first ? >>> >>> The overseers are reachable on: >>> >>> https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/overseers >>> >>> Please keep the tone civil. I hope we never see the day where the GCC/ >>> sourceware lists have to have a code of conduct, but if we did, I think >>> some of the messages on this thread would have breached it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Richard >>> >> Thanks, for reminding me. >> >> I do personally full-heatedly apologize, and regret what I said above. >> >> I am sorry if I made you feel bad. That was not the true intention of what >> I said. >> >> >> I asked Hank Leininger for clarification how mark.info subscribes the mails, >> and what data he gets exactly from us. >> >> I am still waiting for his response, and let you know what he says. >> >> In the meantime, culd you please change http: to https: > > Just in case: I'm not actually an overseer myself, but I can see how > my message could give that impression. I think the request would be > better sent to the overseers list, if you haven't already > > Sorry for the confusion :-) > > Richard >
No problem, I know who you are. I did add CC: oversee...@sourceware.org this time. Every time I hit reply-to-all the overseeer are not in the list I use thunderbird here, and someting on their e-mail address is so bogus that thunderbird does not want to send them mails. By the way instead of using the "please use the list" in angle brackets, which I never look at, I look only at the name. I would suggest you just use your name and oversee...@sourceware.org if you prefer, or something that is quarantined, until you can look at it if it is a personal mail or something of general interest. But if I write a mail I spend a lot of time for it, and if it bounces, that work is lost. This makes a bad start, and the first impression usually decides a lot in our lives. Thanks Bernd.
