On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:40:51 PM Mark Brown wrote:

--FJ0JV+AOCbvjFtNn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

The s-o-b is more of a gray area, but again it is supposed to be possible
to verify which it won't be if it bounces.

That's always going to be an issue with signoffs - people's addresses
can and do go bad at any point.

I know and that's a gray area as I said.

Whether or not it is appropriate to submit a patch with an s-o-b that is known
to bounce is a good question to me.

It is true, though, that this particular patch was originally submitted when
the s-o-b address didn't bounce, so I may restore the tag when applying the
patch.  Need to think about that.

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.