From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from belize.chezphil.org ([80.68.91.122]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1HtAD3-0006KS-AM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 18:30:35 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chezphil.org) by belize.chezphil.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HtEoi-0005XC-LV for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 30 May 2007 04:25:44 +0100 To: Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:30:10 +0100 Subject: Open message to list moderator Message-ID: <1180477810115@dmwebmail.belize.chezphil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed" From: "Phil Endecott" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Moderator, You have just rejected a message that I sent on Sunday. This message provided background information to the patch that I sent at about the same time (and which was accepted). I sent this patch in a spirit of open-source co-operation. It fixes a bug, but it isn't one that was affecting me. I just happened to notice it and thought I'd try to help others by sending a patch. I wasn't expecting to win an award for this, but I certainly wasn't expecting to receive this lecture: Quote: Your request to the linux-mtd mailing list Posting of your message titled "Re: [PATCH] Fix kfree usage in various mtd map remove functions" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Your message contain a reference "Re:" in subject but does not contain (Reference:, or In-reply-to:, or both) in the header. Please, don't do like this. This breaks the mailing list messages threading. Either reply or start a new thread. And please, glance at http://david.woodhou.se/email.html, this is highlighted there. Thanks." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: linux-mtd-owner@lists.infradead.org End Quote. Based on the delay and the wording, I take it that human intervention was involved in the production of this message. For your information, the headers were missing because I was replying to a message that I had sent myself, and my mailer gets confused when I do that. (I wrote my own mailer. It's called Decimail and it's open-source. It does lots of cool things, but it's not perfect.) Now, you have lost the explanation for the patch and have annoyed me enough that I am unlikely to go out of my way to fix any further problems that I spot in your code. Was this really worth it just for a missing header? I invite other list subscribers to express their opinions. Phil.