Hello,
(sorry for being late - but you chose the right things anyway ;-)
Am Donnerstag, 20. Juni 2013 schrieb Tyler Hicks:
> Proposals that were decisively approved through voting:
>
> * Proposal 3.1 - Change subj= to subject=
> * Proposal 3.2 - Move the access to the front
ACK
> Unfortunately
On 06/21/2013 09:44 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>
> In generally I think we want acquire or any permission that only
> applies to a subject address to semantically be in a separate rule
> that does not specify a peer address. This helps keep the meaning
> of the rules clear. We can enforce this type
On 06/21/2013 07:07 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:41:21AM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>> Proposals that were decisively approved through voting:
>>
>> * Proposal 3.1 - Change subj= to subject=
>> * Proposal 3.2 - Move the access to the front
>
> Yay. (Also, retroactive +1 fro
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:41:21AM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> Proposals that were decisively approved through voting:
>
> * Proposal 3.1 - Change subj= to subject=
> * Proposal 3.2 - Move the access to the front
Yay. (Also, retroactive +1 from me on both.)
> Unfortunately, the way that I laid o
