On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 08:12:06PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
reassign 478039 exim4 4.69-2
thanks
Given the version number, I'm assuming this was intended to be filed
against exim4. Reassigning.
And I assume that the reported actually reports a bug in the BTS.
Justin, please explain.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 05:05:01PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I wasn't sure of a proper package to assign the bug to, but it was in
reference to this message: (procmail date) but the date in the headers =
2006.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 12 09:13:20 2008
Subject: Bug#430946 closed
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I submitted a bug report in 2006, the Debian team got around to closing
the case and the header was from the day I submitted the bug, I would
not have received the update had I blocked dates today/2008,
Package: exim
Version: 4.69-2
See below:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I submitted a bug report in 2006, the Debian team got around to closing the
case and the header was from the day I submitted the bug, I would not have
received the update had I blocked dates today/2008, etc:
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:32 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Package: exim
Version: 4.69-2
See below:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I submitted a bug report in 2006, the Debian team got around to closing the
case and the header was from the day I submitted the bug, I
reassign 478039 exim4 4.69-2
thanks
Given the version number, I'm assuming this was intended to be filed
against exim4. Reassigning.
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 19:42 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:32 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Package: exim
Version: 4.69-2
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:32 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Package: exim
Version: 4.69-2
See below:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote:
I submitted a bug report in 2006, the Debian team got around to closing the
case and the header was
7 matches
Mail list logo
