On 10/13/16 09:25, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 06:28 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Marcel,
>>
>> On 10/11/16 15:45, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>>> Proposes best practices on how to use PCI Express/PCI device
>>> in PCI Express based machines and explain the reasoning behind them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> RFC->v2:
>>>  - Addressed a lot of comments from the reviewers (many thanks to
>>> all, especially to Laszlo)
>>>
>>> Since the RFC mail-thread was relatively long and already
>>> has passed a lot of time from the RFC, I post this version
>>> even if is very possible that I left some of the comments out,
>>> my apologies if so.
>>>
>>> I will go over the comments again, in the meantime please
>>> feel free to comment on this version, even if on something
>>> you've already pointed out.
>>>
>>> It may take a day or two until I'll be able to respond, but I
>>> will do my best to address all comments.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>>
>>>  docs/pcie.txt | 273
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 273 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 docs/pcie.txt
>>
>> Your patch doesn't seem to have reached qemu-devel. I got one copy from
>> you directly, and no copy reflected by the qemu-devel list server. I
>> also checked the mailing list archive:
>> - searched for the subject with google -- only the RFC version was found,
>> - checked mail-archive.com by message-id
>> - checked the primary archive for October
>> (http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-10/threads.html)
>> -- I found only messages in the RFC thread.
>>
>> So, before I start reading this version and commenting on it, can you
>> please repost version 2, and verify that the list reflects it?
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That is very strange, I tried sending it again but I received the same
> error:
> 
> Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
> ...
> <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>: host eggs.gnu.org[208.118.235.92] said: 550
> Invalid
>     address in message header (in reply to end of DATA command)
> 
> Reporting-MTA: dns; <>.redhat.com
> X-Postfix-Queue-ID: <>
> X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; mar...@redhat.com
> Arrival-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:20:49 +0000 (UTC)
> 
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Original-Recipient: rfc822;qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.0.0
> Remote-MTA: dns; eggs.gnu.org
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Invalid address in message header
> 
> 
> I'll try sending the mail with another mail server.

Something remains broken; and quite strangely at that. Now I've got two copies 
of the following message in my inbox:

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 RESEND] docs: add PCIe devices placement guidelines

with the following message-id's:

  <1476343236-13192-1-git-send-email-mar...@redhat.com>
  <1476345339-5355-1-git-send-email-mar...@redhat.com>

and I have zero copies of this message in my qemu-devel folder.

Interestingly, the subject *does* have the [qemu-devel] prefix, in both copies. 
So I thought, maybe these were reflected by the list server after all, and only 
their headers changed unexpectedly / inexpicably, so that my filter rules 
wouldn't apply any longer (and the messages wouldn't be moved to my qemu-devel 
folder).

However, the mailing list archive at 
<http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-10/threads.html> still 
does not list your message.

Here's the full list of headers from the first RESEND message:

> Return-Path: mar...@redhat.com
> Received: from zmta01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (LHLO 
> zmta01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com) (10.5.81.8) by 
> zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com with LMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:20:49 
> -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com 
> (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by 
> zmta01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399BF186479; 
> Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from work.redhat.com (vpn-200-250.tlv.redhat.com [10.35.200.250]) 
> by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 
> u9D7KbZ4017253; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:20:40 -0400
> From: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com>
> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com, kra...@redhat.com, la...@redhat.com, 
> peter.mayd...@linaro.org, drjo...@redhat.com, abolo...@redhat.com, 
> "alex.williamson@redhat.comberrange"@redhat.com, m...@redhat.com, 
> mar...@redhat.com
> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 RESEND] docs: add PCIe devices placement 
> guidelines
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:20:36 +0300
> Message-Id: <1476343236-13192-1-git-send-email-mar...@redhat.com>
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26

Same from the second RESEND message:

> Return-Path: marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com
> Received: from zmta05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (LHLO 
> zmta05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com) (10.5.81.12) by 
> zmail17.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com with LMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:55:48 
> -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com 
> (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by 
> zmta05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2946AF3D17; 
> Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:55:48 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com 
> [10.5.110.38]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) 
> with ESMTP id u9D7tmY6005308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 
> cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 
> 03:55:48 -0400
> Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com (mail-lf0-f65.google.com 
> [209.85.215.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 
> (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) 
> with ESMTPS id 18E556ACB; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:55:46 +0000 (UTC)
> Received: by mail-lf0-f65.google.com with SMTP id x79so11304638lff.2;        
> Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; 
> s=20120113;        h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id;        
> bh=+JGgRHitO0WAq3Rs3Wg56WhdeaZNglV9fLL15iELtbI=;        
> b=Cy+4b1NqUiUkUsBKiRjFuJU3v49UagEhdlaPyl9+CA+NVMq+OPtiLV5yXuZpt8CLG1         
> bM3yFj9WiJKDvYfqC1RfP++b+GiZ54VfDVYJApJMfgVNUzQ9KTwym4PyRZdq4mDs+bpz         
> RPahiIr0X4Te2NmGTigFFAiehF+Cbp/z+Iw3sd1Ohk8AGQi9SeArYOwpEMfftny1bpzL         
> 0sy7rckFYDii4tR4NGFea6QwD1WdiZQMEcGO4ehMYkaNK1CF0HzZS8qPowhXps9jP3SI         
> UJQVsgIA4XzmsU8uM9obwpYEDpsFm1sEm8QJQnH0eHIFIIsmhbYBGY01mOyaOOpreCuU         
> /zhA==
> X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        
> d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        
> h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id;        
> bh=+JGgRHitO0WAq3Rs3Wg56WhdeaZNglV9fLL15iELtbI=;        
> b=I5eFxwfhwQRfip4oTgWmEVxmZIZASVTZXSx4wX3E/yXDHbvjlQ9JZ0r6QEewsKqC6l         
> iiPmk22UIegrf8nERV9sZ36oCDwkVt7lDHXTyVYIR71EXfgCIA/EjNfqqoB7S6W7SvnZ         
> Drk41JuMd0nTsosckYkgf7a/ihIW36rAvEK7Nk0w3ksOUu4T4mgvwecmQoEDM+azW8of         
> z2U6bnBPMDw4FWMSjbjTkmkTOxQq8lDwOehFCN7CiriNgdJdxx5ZSRoxuQwPvzY2WzN0         
> sTSorSr9up5y8xqM0DbN5T0meRbAtEKiqD13pvik/VvTPQ1aohbaRCEe8lHce9quR3xj         
> RAZQ==
> X-Gm-Message-State: 
> AA6/9RmSYj3noaP+kq0Jt5q2dU0xdBwlcYcms/Jj427Xur4KqGcVF/T3+KdHk7+aPe+NwA==
> X-Received: by 10.28.4.16 with SMTP id 16mr1160305wme.39.1476345344367;       
>  Thu, 13 Oct 2016 00:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from work.redhat.com ([46.120.229.240])        by smtp.gmail.com 
> with ESMTPSA id a1sm20384747wjl.28.2016.10.13.00.55.41        (version=TLS1_2 
> cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);        Thu, 13 Oct 2016 
> 00:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
> Sender: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com>
> From: Marcel Apfelbaum <marce...@redhat.com>
> X-Google-Original-From: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com>
> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com, kra...@redhat.com, la...@redhat.com, 
> peter.mayd...@linaro.org, drjo...@redhat.com, abolo...@redhat.com, 
> "alex.williamson@redhat.comberrange"@redhat.com, m...@redhat.com, 
> mar...@redhat.com
> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 RESEND] docs: add PCIe devices placement 
> guidelines
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:55:39 +0300
> Message-Id: <1476345339-5355-1-git-send-email-mar...@redhat.com>
> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 
> (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:55:46 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com 
> [10.5.110.38]); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:55:46 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'209.85.215.65' 
> DOMAIN:'mail-lf0-f65.google.com' HELO:'mail-lf0-f65.google.com' 
> FROM:'marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com' RCPT:''
> X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 1.272 * 
> (BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS)
>  209.85.215.65 mail-lf0-f65.google.com 209.85.215.65 mail-lf0-f65.google.com 
> <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com>
> X-RedHat-Possible-Forgery: <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com> Marcel Apfelbaum 
> <marce...@redhat.com>
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.5.110.38

None of these appear to contain the following headers (example taken from 
another message of yours that I do see on the list / in my qemu-devel folder):

> X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
> List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>, 
> <mailto:qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
> List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>, 
> <mailto:qemu-devel-requ...@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
> X-Mailman-Copy: yes

Something is seriously broken.

Peter and/or Stefan (really I'm just guessing here...), who can help us analyze 
this from the mailing list side? Especially the "550 Invalid address in message 
header" error message from eggs.gnu.org? Because, the exact same messages have 
been delivered directly to my inbox just fine.

Thanks,
Laszlo

Reply via email to