[CrackMonkey] [tb@becket.net: ATTENTION MICHAEL SCHMITZ]

[Brian D. Hicks]

Yes.  E-mailing people with requests that they stop blocking your e-mail
always works.  And check out the X- headers!

I was about to cut out the last bit, but then you would've missed the
X-Tom-Swiftie!

----- Forwarded message from "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb at becket.net> -----

To: debian-powerpc at lists.debian.org
Subject: ATTENTION MICHAEL SCHMITZ
X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute
		 permission for an emailed response.
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51  63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E  EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92
X-Windows: Don't get frustrated without it.
From: tb at becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
X-Mailing-List: <debian-powerpc at lists.debian.org> archive/latest/18688


Your mailer is rejecting valid email messages from me with no
explanation.  FIX IT.




X-From-Line: MAILER-DAEMON Fri Jan 04 15:47:35 2002
Envelope-to: tb at becket.net
X-Failed-Recipients: schmitz at mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de
From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon at becket.net>
To: tb at becket.net
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Xref: becket.becket.net incoming.generic:71761

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  schmitz at mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de
    SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<tb at becket.net>:
    host opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.176.7]:
    550 5.0.0 We don't accept mail from spammers

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <tb at becket.net>
Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 16Me3e-0003E6-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:47:30 -0800
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitz at mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cc: <debian-powerpc at lists.debian.org>,  <debian-qa at lists.debian.org>,
	  <121459 at bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: microwindows build status
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041907220.17741-100000 at opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute
		 permission for an emailed response.
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51  63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E  EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92
X-Tom-Swiftie: "I just got some chicken wire," Tom said defensively
From: tb at becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 04 Jan 2002 15:47:30 -0800
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041907220.17741-100000 at opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Message-ID: <87advtel0t.fsf at becket.becket.net>
Lines: 18
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Michael Schmitz <schmitz at mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> writes:

> (I rarely do these
> days, rather rely on the maintainer to check build status and
> logs). 

This is not such a good idea.  Maintainers are generally not
responsible for checking build status and logs; the port maintainer
(whoever is responsible for making the binary NMU) should do that andn
file an RC bug.

Indeed, there are many packages that miss getting into testing because
of some problem uploading or building one port or another, and
maintainers in general seem to be totally unaware of these.  I think
the people who take responsibility for uploading the binary NMUs for
various ports need to also take the responsibility for filing bugs
when things are failing.

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Brian Hicks <hick0142 at umn.edu> <http://eight.dhs.org> <PGP:0xADDD1F16> 
  "We did a lot of that, on TNG. The pointing and laughing, I mean."
	 -- Wil Wheaton