From Onlinereview at natwest.com Mon May 12 12:26:18 2008 From: Onlinereview at natwest.com (NATWEST BANK PLC) Date: Mon May 12 12:26:49 2008 Subject: Online Account Review Message-ID: <20080512085953.13818.qmail@be2.ibox.ru> [1]NatWest logo [2]Good morning and welcome to NatWest Dear Natwest Bank Customer: It has come to our attention that your account billing updates are out of order. If you could please take 5-10 minutes out of your online experience and update your billing records you will not run into any future problems with the online service. However, failure to update your records will result in account termination. Please update your records as soon as possible.If you are the rightful holder of the account you must click the link below and then complete all steps from the following page as we try to verify your identity. [3]www.natwest.com/updating%20managementcenter/www.natwest.com=updatin g/0,,80120,00.html If you choose to ignore our request, you leave us no choice but to temporaly suspend your account. Regards Natwest Bank, Updating Department. We will never contact customers via email asking to supply any confidential information, telephone or internet banking login details via email that is why we want you to verify your account by our internet automated machine. [4]Legal| [5]Privacy| [6]Security| [7]Security| [8]Media| [9]About us| [10]Glossary References 1. http://www.natwest.com/ 2. http://www.natwest.com/personal02.asp?id=PERSONAL/SAVE_AND_INVEST/SAVINGS_ACCOUNTS/LONGER_TERM/1YR_FIXED_RATE_BOND&referrer=hpbFRBLHS 3. http://www.joomlao.com/www.natwest.co.uk/nwolb/personal/default.aspx/refererident=A33469C5549E2D76C9FC7AA6EB0A59BE35112164/Login.aspx.htm 4. http://www.hamedan-icm.ir//components/mail2/www.natwest.co.uk/com/www.natwest.com/default.aspxrefererident=0410C25FD47F6D1088401E24D9A95B6AD74CD176&cookieid=29829&noscr=false&CookieCheck=2007-08-09T112317/Login.html 5. http://www.hamedan-icm.ir//components/mail2/www.natwest.co.uk/com/www.natwest.com/default.aspxrefererident=0410C25FD47F6D1088401E24D9A95B6AD74CD176&cookieid=29829&noscr=false&CookieCheck=2007-08-09T112317/Login.html 6. http://www.hamedan-icm.ir//components/mail2/www.natwest.co.uk/com/www.natwest.com/default.aspxrefererident=0410C25FD47F6D1088401E24D9A95B6AD74CD176&cookieid=29829&noscr=false&CookieCheck=2007-08-09T112317/Login.html 7. http://www.hamedan-icm.ir//components/mail2/www.natwest.co.uk/com/www.natwest.com/default.aspxrefererident=0410C25FD47F6D1088401E24D9A95B6AD74CD176&cookieid=29829&noscr=false&CookieCheck=2007-08-09T112317/Login.html 8. http://www.natwest.com/global_options.asp?id=GLOBAL/MEDIA 9. http://www.natwest.com/global_options.asp?id=GLOBAL/ABOUT_US 10. http://www.natwest.com/global_options.asp?id=GLOBAL/GLOSSARY From linimon at lonesome.com Sat May 24 04:22:04 2008 From: linimon at lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Date: Sat May 24 04:22:12 2008 Subject: yet another idea for a report Message-ID: <20080524040435.GB15993@soaustin.net> We need to do some "data reduction", e.g., list the PRs we keep getting over and over again. If you look at http://people.freebsd.org/~linimon/wellknown.prs you'll see a list, with some comments. Now, I haven't figured out how to get the comments into the report, but the first pass is at: http://people.freebsd.org/~linimon/studies/prs/wellknown_prs.html Anyone want to add any others? Or have any other feedback? mcl From kai at xs4all.net Mon May 26 16:20:26 2008 From: kai at xs4all.net (Kai Storbeck) Date: Mon May 26 16:20:30 2008 Subject: Amd Message-ID: Hello all, I've just subscribed, trying to be useful. Theres a few things I've noticed on the new problem reports; The valid tag "amd" doesn't refer to a scsi driver but to the automount daemon [amd(8)]. On the NFS tag I found 2 problem tickets both referring to NFS stalling on NIS lookups albeit on different stages in the loading: conf/17540 and conf/22308. They are both quite old, and if I would be in the position of fixing bugs, I'd ask them to resubmit it. Its 2008. Is there a policy on old tickets on old issues that really should have a followup for a later release? Kai -- This was an above the .signature production From linimon at lonesome.com Tue May 27 02:55:25 2008 From: linimon at lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Date: Tue May 27 02:55:29 2008 Subject: Amd In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080527023703.GE31491@soaustin.net> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 06:03:12PM +0200, Kai Storbeck wrote: > The valid tag "amd" doesn't refer to a scsi driver but to the > automount daemon [amd(8)]. OK, fixed. > On the NFS tag I found 2 problem tickets both referring to NFS > stalling on NIS lookups albeit on different stages in the loading: > conf/17540 and conf/22308. They are both quite old, and if I would be > in the position of fixing bugs, I'd ask them to resubmit it. Its 2008. > > Is there a policy on old tickets on old issues that really should have > a followup for a later release? Not a "policy" as such, more a set of guidelines. What we have found is that many bugs tend to persist :-( thus, closing them merely because they are old does not necessarily help anything. What we normally do is to set them to 'feedback' and in that process send mail to the submitter asking if it is still a problem. About half the time the email bounces, about 25% of the time the problem still exists, and then there are variations. If you'd like to chip in, feel free to send a followup to each of them, and then remind me, so I can set the state to 'feedback'. Thanks. mcl