Re: Received: lines in email from Debian servers

[Rob Sims]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:45:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Below is a sample from the headers of a mail sent to me by gluck.  You will 
> note that my server logs that the envelope recipient was [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> while gluck puts no such data in the log entry.
> 
> This lack of information does no good (it's not secret) but makes it much 
> more 
> difficult to track down misconfiguration issues and spam.
> 
> Received: from gluck.debian.org (gluck.debian.org [192.25.206.10])
>   by smtp.sws.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3F461B02
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:13:56 +1000 (EST)
> Received: from (carmax.com) [220.90.224.49] 
>   by gluck.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
>   id 1DlGod-0002gJ-00; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:47:40 -0600

Was this message addressed to more than one recpient handled by gluck?
I've noticed that servers that insert the "for" tag will only do so if
there is one envelope recipient.

If this happens with a single gluck recipient, never mind me...
-- 
Rob


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BTS version tracking

[Rob Sims]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:06:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> A number of changes have been made to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] to
> support this. Firstly, the 'close' and 'reassign' commands now take
> extra version arguments, as follows:
> 
>   close 1234567 1.1
>   reassign 1234567 example-package 2.0-1

How is a bug that's fixed in more than one version handled?  For
example, a security bug fixed in foo 1.1-sarge1 and foo 1.3.  Assume 1.1
and 1.2 have the bug.
-- 
Rob


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]