On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 12:53:18PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, 2023-12-19 at 10:01 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > >> > > >> > > When sending an email to SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx, the server > >> > > responds '550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.' > >> > >> Is the claim here true? In another thread I replied all including this list > >> and I am not getting a bounce message. > > > > I also got the bounce, FWIW. And Lukas is using gmail ... if you're not > > accepting mail from gmail I'm not sure you get to call it "email" in the > > 21st century, for (better or) worse... > > And is Infineon even contributing anything to upstream? At least I don't > have recollection any recent activity, though happy to be proven wrong. > We shouldn't have dormant information in MAINTAINERS file. > I'm also using gmail (and GMX as backup). When I sent my reply about rPI testing [1] with SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc'ed, I got `Address not found` error instead (but the DSN message was in spam folder instead as I treated it as junk). For Infineon, they're now focusing on TPM subsystem, with the latest message is 6 months (or a semester in academic speak) ago [2]. Thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZYLKftqKFJ_PMmF3@xxxxxxxxx/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230613180259.3525-4-Alexander.Steffen@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
