Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 15:13:34 + Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > Hi Robert! > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:52:07PM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote: > >I'm afraid that I got rather heavily tied up in other things and so > > haven't > > been able to work on this as much as I'd

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Hi Mattia! On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 01:16:20 PM Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:38:47AM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote: > > Hi Tobias! > > > > On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Hi Robert! On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:38:47AM -0500, Robert James Clay wrote: > Hi Tobias! > > On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay > > wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM

Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Hi Tobias! On Thursday, January 07, 2016 05:54:29 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay > wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream? > > > >The non vendor

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Hi Robert, (btw, please configure your MTA to wrap your mails) On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:08:55 -0500 Robert James Clay wrote: > On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > - Is the patch forwarded to upstream? >  >The non vendor specific parts of it, you

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay: > > Some small review. As a result of the review of my multimail package by Tobias, I have completed some updates to the package and have uploaded the new

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay: Some small review. (I did not perform a copyright check and did not build the package) - Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically generated. (The long description would be anyway confusing: "provides

Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 04:27:48 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > Am Montag, den 04.01.2016, 21:29 -0500 schrieb Robert James Clay: > > Some small review. Thanks! > > - Please do not introduce a dbg package -- they are now automatically > generated. That came out since my

Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

El 03/01/16 a las 11:44, Robert James Clay escribió: > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 02:25:05 AM Robert James Clay wrote: > >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "multimail" > >I am still looking for a sponsor for the package I am adopting, > "multimail"; or at least a review(s), if

Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Hi Fernando! On Monday, January 04, 2016 02:56:45 PM Fernando Toledo wrote: > > El 03/01/16 a las 11:44, Robert James Clay escribió: > >I am still looking for a sponsor for the package I am adopting, > > "multimail"; or at least a review(s), if not sponsoring. > Hi Robert, i just

Re: Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 02:25:05 AM Robert James Clay wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "multimail" I am still looking for a sponsor for the package I am adopting, "multimail"; or at least a review(s), if not sponsoring. It can be downloaded as follows: dget -x

Bug#806572: RFS: multimail/0.50~20150922-1 [ITA]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "multimail" * Package name: multimail Version : 0.50~20150922-1 Upstream Author : William McBrine * URL : http://multimail.sourceforge.net *