"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> If not, would it be possible to some how force reply-to of pg-patches to
>> -hackers?
>
> No, we aren't going to do that. It wouldn't work anyway; you can't
> force people to send messages to one list rather than another, and
> the mail list software is surely not bright enough to distinguish
> "patch" from "not a patch" on its own.
I did suggest something a while back that I think died for because too many
other things were changing at the same time. Perhaps would be more practical
with the current infrastructure. I suggested eliminating pgsql-patches as a
separate mailing list for people to send mail to.
Instead you could subscribe to a version of pgsql-hackers which automatically
had large attachments removed and replaced with a link to the file on a web
page.
So all followups would be on -hackers because they would follow the headers on
the original message. The only place the -noattachments list would show up
would be buried in the Received headers.
I could help make a perl script to do the message munging but this assumes
there's a way to hook it into the mail server and get the files to the web
server. I'm not familiar with the infrastructure so I don't know how
accessible these things are to each other.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
