Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> > > > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to
> > > > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but
> > > > > > > have your reply visible to the list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing
> > > > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads
> > > > > > list mails.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt.
> > > > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol.
> > > >
> > > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us?
> > >
> > > Clearly there are several people that are using ad44@cityscape.co.uk e-mail.
> > > Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some conclusion.
> >
> > Your theorising is interesting and doesn't really answer the question.
>
> Because if you make a certain statement, the burden of proof lies on you.
> Now that you have answered own question,
The statement was about the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER, not its presence.
As Thomas says - a user could be subscribed with another address.
--
Brian.
Reply to: