Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6EC2E011F for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:47:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92039-01 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:47:44 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE992E00F8 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:47:52 -0400 (AST) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id y6so1145701tia.5 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.151.85.20 with SMTP id n20mr578038ybl.79.1204645667339; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.96.5 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:47:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <937d27e10803040747m215cd36fpe64fe1bf15e867b2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:47:47 +0000 From: "Dave Page" To: "Magnus Hagander" Subject: Re: An actually *useful* mail-list message footer Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" , "Tom Lane" , "Greg Sabino Mullane" , pgsql-www@postgresql.org, "Marc G. Fournier" In-Reply-To: <20080304154447.GI18403@svr2.hagander.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080303144202.GB7360@alvh.no-ip.org> <20080303152720.GC7360@alvh.no-ip.org> <20080303153119.GE12096@svr2.hagander.net> <23559.1204559504@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080304141608.GD4755@alvh.no-ip.org> <20080304144646.GE18403@svr2.hagander.net> <20080304151304.GE4755@alvh.no-ip.org> <20080304153521.GG18403@svr2.hagander.net> <20080304154136.GF4755@alvh.no-ip.org> <20080304154447.GI18403@svr2.hagander.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/42 X-Sequence-Number: 14161 On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Yeah, underscore wasn't in the allowed chars in the regexp. And yes, it > should've been change-the-name to be consistent with our other lists. > Is the list alive at all, or should it be deleted? As far as I'm concerned, it should be removed. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that was eventually solved in a more appropriate way (eventually being the major problem I'll admit). -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk