1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1Qe3Pe-0001Kd-An
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:03:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 208.79.240.5 as permitted sender)
client-ip=208.79.240.5; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me;
helo=smtpauth.rollernet.us;
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us ([208.79.240.5])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Qe3Pb-0004rH-Ag
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:03:30 +0000
Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F2B594012
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 5 Jul 2011 04:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:2:20c:29ff:fe16:f239])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: @bluematt.me)
by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 5 Jul 2011 04:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:1:2c0:caff:fe33:858b] (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:1:2c0:caff:fe33:858b])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5ED90B35E
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:03:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2-htzpQPxrNqq1Efow2tuUdm5AQGOh0MS0MXvH5pD_5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1309801974.3423.80.camel@Desktop666>
<CABsx9T31ZuQHKwcNnb9-NpaCA6c43PXVZ+Tc+GZ=2Wkz08enHw@mail.gmail.com>
<1309811972.29355.19.camel@Desktop666>
<1309828239.29355.28.camel@Desktop666>
<CABsx9T2-htzpQPxrNqq1Efow2tuUdm5AQGOh0MS0MXvH5pD_5g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1";
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="=-nnAaYR3u8h5Kmj+mj7jt"
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:03:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1309863795.29355.30.camel@Desktop666>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
X-Rollernet-Abuse: Processed by Roller Network Mail Services. Contact
abuse@rollernet.us to report violations. Abuse policy:
http://rollernet.us/abuse.php
X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 5584.4e12ef6a.5a247.0
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Qe3Pb-0004rH-Ag
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Encrypted Wallet Backward Compatibility
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:03:30 -0000
--=-nnAaYR3u8h5Kmj+mj7jt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 22:26 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I don't think 0.3.24 "needs" either of those pulls. Fixing
> downgrade-to-0.3.24 is low on the priority list, because
> downgrade-to-something-before-0.3.24 is just about as likely, and that
> has to do something mostly reasonable.
Really, well I disagree but OK, 0.3.24 it is.
--=-nnAaYR3u8h5Kmj+mj7jt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=R61x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-nnAaYR3u8h5Kmj+mj7jt--
|
