Message308906
| Author | tjguk |
|---|---|
| Recipients | ned.deily, paul.moore, skn78, steve.dower, thatiparthy, tim.golden, tjguk, zach.ware |
| Date | 2017-12-21.21:43:55 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <14a90407-da28-cb6c-12e3-dc3940f50927@timgolden.me.uk> |
| In-reply-to | <1513890800.9.0.213398074469.issue32394@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Excluding for now seems like a simple option. (Basically a reversion to previous behaviour). And allows us easily to include again later easily. Messing with setsockopt seems a little more risky. In short: I'm with you -- exclude for now. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-12-21 21:43:55 | tjguk | set | recipients: + tjguk, paul.moore, tim.golden, ned.deily, zach.ware, steve.dower, thatiparthy, skn78 |
| 2017-12-21 21:43:55 | tjguk | link | issue32394 messages |
| 2017-12-21 21:43:55 | tjguk | create | |