On Apr 16, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> The attachment was also broken.
I see "the attachment created by our butt-head mailer, from text that
was originally just the message body, is broken."
I do not see "an attachment provided by the original sender is broken."
Are you seeing something different?
The current state and plan, as we understand it, is:
1. attachments provided by the originator are not munged
2. code review can be performed, if necessary by attaching the patch
rather than in-lining it
3. the fix to un-butt-head our ML is scheduled for the next _release_,
not _patch_ or _hot-fix_, because of the above two mitigators
I'm trying to explain the current state as clearly as possible; I'm
not arguing that the current state is right (God forbid!), or even
optimal; just explaining what it is. If the mitigators don't actually
happen, I want to know about that. If you think the mitigators aren't
good enough, I want to know about that as well.
Chief Technology Officer
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
office: +1 650.228.2562
mobile: +1 408.835.8090
raindance: +1 877.326.2337, x844.7461
Received on 2009-04-16 20:35:23 CEST