Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> 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,
> >
> >
> > > That address is not subscribed to the list and plays no part in routeing
> > > mails to or from the list.
> >
> > Yet e-mails with that address at From: do have X-Spam-Status: LDOSUBSCRIBER.
> > Whenever list e-mail is delivered at another e-mail is hardly relevant.
> >
> > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have
> > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about.
>
> Dead easy. Just configure your email system so that the envelope-from
> does not match your subscribed address. All my list postings lacked
> LDOSUBSCRIBER until April last year for that reason. Judging by one
> of the threads I contributed to at that time, I expect that this is
> when I changed my domain's name from nothing to "corp", and stopped
> exim from nagging me about my FQDN.
Ok, that can work, I appreciate the explanation.
Now, the hard part. Show me a way *not* to have LDOSUBSCRIBER, and have
both Return-Path and From to be the same *and* to be subscribed to the
list. Bonus point is awarded for From to be from @gmail.com, another one
if e-mail is sent by Google MTA, with the valid DKIM.
Previous sentences refer to OP's e-mail, just in case.
Reco
Reply to: