Re: debian-user list problem
On Sun 11 Oct 2015 at 17:00:43 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 03:01:23PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 11 Oct 2015 at 15:17:19 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:40:15PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was wondering what the significance of LDOSUBSCRIBER in the headers
> > > > of the first mail in this thread is.
> > > >
> > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
> > > > DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VERIFIED,FREEMAIL_FROM,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST,
> > > > RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
> > >
> > > This is the spam checker on Bendel: if this one got triggered, we wouldn't
> > > see the original poster's mail at all (with some additional crystal ball
> > > I'd say that is one of the factors Spam Assassin is using is that the sender
> > > is LDO ("lists.debian.org" suggests itself) subscriber, which probably (hopefully?)
> > > will lower the spam score.
> >
> > The implication being that the poster was subscribed to -user at the
> > time (Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:23:22 +0200) the mail was received?
>
> That's more than what my crystal ball can tell: -user?
Can we discard this crystal ball of yours and cast a few runes or examine
chicken entrails instead? :)
X-Spam-Status gives a list of SpamAssassin tests that returned a non-zero
value. I am going to assume the Debian mailing list for -user assigns a
negative score if the poster is a list member (why should your score be
pushed closer to 4.0?).
Which raises the question of whether maderios was ever unsubscribed from
-user. This will remove his motivation for having to reprimand his cat
for being underhand or devious. It leaves open the question whether the
resubscription did any good or if it was some other readjustment of the
system which restored reception of list mails.
> -user? or just any debian.org list? Only postmasters know...
The incidence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in my -systemd archive is zero. Other
lists do not appear to rely on it in the same way as -user.
Reply to: