From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Brown paper bag fix to previous send-email change Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:04:36 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3au9hfuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1197356116-12176-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 11 08:05:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J1zAy-0007BV-Nz for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:05:37 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751092AbXLKHEr (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751832AbXLKHEq (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:46 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:52808 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751092AbXLKHEq (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:46 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4FC4E7D; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780194E7C; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:04:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1197356116-12176-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:55:16 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Mike Hommey writes: > My previous change led to the In-Reply-To header being <> when the given > value was empty. This fixes it. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Hommey > --- > > I think I have an antispam problem somewhere with this patch, because even > keeping sending it, it never reached the list. And Junio didn't answer to my > private message about it, so I guess that was some server being smart with > the subject line. *sigh* > > PS: sorry Junio if you get this patch multiple time. No, I happened to have noticed the same and have an almost identical fix (I said "defined $initial_reply_to") already queued in my tree.