Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #158838 > unrolled thread

Re: debian-user list problem

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Re: debian-user list problem maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 12:20 +0200
    Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 12:40 +0200
      Re: debian-user list problem "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-10-11 13:20 +0200
        Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 13:30 +0200
        Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 13:40 +0200
      Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 13:30 +0200
    Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 12:40 +0200
      Re: debian-user list problem maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 14:10 +0200
        Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 14:20 +0200
          Re: debian-user list problem maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 14:40 +0200
            Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 14:40 +0200
            Solved_Re: debian-user list problem maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 20:30 +0200
        Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 14:20 +0200
          Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 14:30 +0200
            Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 14:40 +0200
          Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 14:40 +0200
            Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 15:00 +0200
              Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 15:50 +0200
                Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 16:00 +0200
                  Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 16:10 +0200
                    Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 17:40 +0200
                      Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 20:00 +0200
                        Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 21:20 +0200
                          Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 22:00 +0200
        Re: debian-user list problem Francesco Ariis <fa-ml@ariis.it> - 2015-10-11 14:20 +0200
          Re: debian-user list problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-11 14:30 +0200
          Re: debian-user list problem moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-10-11 20:10 +0200
            Re: debian-user list problem John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-10-11 20:30 +0200
            Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 20:30 +0200
              Re: debian-user list problem moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-10-12 17:10 +0200
                Re: debian-user list problem moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-10-12 17:40 +0200
                Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 17:50 +0200
                  Re: debian-user list problem moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-10-13 16:00 +0200
            Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 22:00 +0200
              Re: debian-user list problem maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 23:50 +0200
                Re: debian-user list problem Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 00:00 +0200
                  Re: debian-user list problem maderios <maderios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:30 +0200
        Re: debian-user list problem Jimmy Johnson <field.engineer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 18:10 +0200
          Re: debian-user list problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-11 20:00 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#158874

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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? or just any debian.org
list? Only postmasters know...

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYaeZsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaAwgCeKvEwdaodvDxfYQnhACMRfb0S
jDMAn30evXnGCeDHWkNrZkhY60E1YYt8
=pJwg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158885

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158901

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 06:50:13PM +0100, Brian wrote:

[...]

> 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?).

sounds plausible: but still, why specifically "-user" and not just "subscribed
to any Debian list"? Both would make kind of sense.

> 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.

I'm all for the poor cat, although I'm confident Madarias is a nice person.
Re-subscription seems to have solved the issue anyhow. Besides the cat,
a couple of bounces to the list might de-activate the subscription.

> > -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.

Well, that settles the one point above. Chicken entrails seem to be
more accurate than crystal balls :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYarR8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZepQCeMLOtdtExobKWNWtOniGgqwpk
RhAAn1DULnFGi/gQxvCoBiwlMm+c9Zi0
=VrI+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158903

On Sun 11 Oct 2015 at 20:40:32 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 06:50:13PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 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?).
> 
> sounds plausible: but still, why specifically "-user" and not just "subscribed
> to any Debian list"? Both would make kind of sense.

I am not (stating the obvious) a Listmaster. My plausible analysis stands
until it is shot down,

> > 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.
> 
> I'm all for the poor cat, although I'm confident Madarias is a nice person.

Without a doubt.

> Re-subscription seems to have solved the issue anyhow. Besides the cat,
> a couple of bounces to the list might de-activate the subscription.

You are convinced subscribing again was the solution. Why? Did you stand
at maderios' shoulder?

> > > -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.
> 
> Well, that settles the one point above. Chicken entrails seem to be
> more accurate than crystal balls :-)

Sorry to cut this conversation short but I'm due for an appointment at my
local Oracle in 10 minutes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158859

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:08:34PM +0200, maderios wrote:
> Strangely, it works partially now, only for this thread 'debian-user list
> problem'. I receive mail with this thread but I can't receive mail from
> other threads.
> About my spam box: I watch it very often. It is empty.

You are receiving mails because people put you in Carbon Copy (Cc:).
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/503224 check this thread
for all the messages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158861

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:10:17PM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote:

> You are receiving mails because people put you in Carbon Copy (Cc:).
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/503224 check this thread
> for all the messages.

Yep, that makes sense (and weakens my hypothesis elsewhere in this thread).

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYaS/gACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYtGgCeNAESEABjj1BqupBa4HkpL/ho
ULAAnRKlF272fszgK27Ammp7G3Ewi4D/
=4Gfo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158889

Wait.. so Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default? That
seems like a rather strange default (and that behaviour is the default in
mailman).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158894

moxalt writes:
> Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default?

Yes it does.

> That seems like a rather strange default

It's Gmail that has the strange default.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158895

On Sun 11 Oct 2015 at 21:06:11 +0300, moxalt wrote:

> Wait.. so Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default? That
> seems like a rather strange default (and that behaviour is the default in
> mailman).

Besides no attribution or quoting you appear to have completely missed
understanding the point of this thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158967

> Besides no attribution or quoting

Anyone subscribed to the mailing list and in a client with threading will be
able to see the context, and anyone recently subscribed can look at the
archives for all I care. If a message deserves a point-by-point rebuttal I'll
give it one in the appropriate format.

> you appear to have completely missed understanding the point of this thread.

What I said had nothing to do with 'the point of the entire thread'- seeing as
it's already been resolved. Francesco said that OP was only receiving posts due
to him being CC'd by the sender- I thought that was a bit strange and enquired
as to whether the Debian list sends people's messages back to them by default.
Since I had only just subscribed and had not received any posts back yet I had
cause to wonder.

Be thankful I'm not top-posting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158973

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:04:03 +0300, moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:

> > Besides no attribution or quoting
> 
> Anyone subscribed to the mailing list and in a client with threading will be
> able to see the context, and anyone recently subscribed can look at the
> archives for all I care. If a message deserves a point-by-point rebuttal I'll
> give it one in the appropriate format.
> 
> > you appear to have completely missed understanding the point of this thread.
> 
> What I said had nothing to do with 'the point of the entire thread'- seeing as
> it's already been resolved. Francesco said that OP was only receiving posts
> due to him being CC'd by the sender- I thought that was a bit strange and
> enquired as to whether the Debian list sends people's messages back to them
> by default. Since I had only just subscribed and had not received any posts
> back yet I had cause to wonder.
> 
> Be thankful I'm not top-posting.

Ah, screw it. I quote now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158974

On Monday 12 October 2015 16:04:03 moxalt wrote:
> I thought that was a bit strange and enquired
> as to whether the Debian list sends people's messages back to them by
> default. Since I had only just subscribed and had not received any posts
> back yet I had cause to wonder.

I get mine back, provided that I don't use GMail's SMTP.  If I use my ISP's 
SMTP server I get them back.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159037

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:40:22 +0100, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday 12 October 2015 16:04:03 moxalt wrote:
> > I thought that was a bit strange and enquired
> > as to whether the Debian list sends people's messages back to them by
> > default. Since I had only just subscribed and had not received any posts
> > back yet I had cause to wonder.
> 
> I get mine back, provided that I don't use GMail's SMTP.  If I use my ISP's 
> SMTP server I get them back.
> 
> Lisi

A post that was actually helpful and informative, rather than bitching about my
posting etiquette. Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158904

On Sunday 11 October 2015 19:06:11 moxalt wrote:
> Wait.. so Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default? That
> seems like a rather strange default (and that behaviour is the default in
> mailman).

It isn't Debian that doesn't.   It's Gmail.
Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158924

On 10/11/2015 09:54 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 11 October 2015 19:06:11 moxalt wrote:
>> Wait.. so Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default? That
>> seems like a rather strange default (and that behaviour is the default in
>> mailman).
>
> It isn't Debian that doesn't.   It's Gmail.
> Lisi
>
I tried aol, it's the same.

-- 
Maderios

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158925

On Sunday 11 October 2015 22:43:11 maderios wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 09:54 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 11 October 2015 19:06:11 moxalt wrote:
> >> Wait.. so Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default?
> >> That seems like a rather strange default (and that behaviour is the
> >> default in mailman).
> >
> > It isn't Debian that doesn't.   It's Gmail.
> > Lisi
>
> I tried aol, it's the same.

So oyu are saying that the problem was that your own mails weren't coming back 
to you?  I thought it was that the list mails in general weren't reaching 
you.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158963

On 10/11/2015 11:58 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 11 October 2015 22:43:11 maderios wrote:
>> On 10/11/2015 09:54 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> On Sunday 11 October 2015 19:06:11 moxalt wrote:
>>>> Wait.. so Debian doesn't send your own replies back to you by default?
>>>> That seems like a rather strange default (and that behaviour is the
>>>> default in mailman).
>>>
>>> It isn't Debian that doesn't.   It's Gmail.
>>> Lisi
>>
>> I tried aol, it's the same.
>
> So oyu are saying that the problem was that your own mails weren't coming back
> to you?  I thought it was that the list mails in general weren't reaching
> you.
>
???
I don't understand what you mean...
About list problem I report here precedently, it's solved, as I 
explained it yesterday.
-- 
Maderios

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158876

On 10/11/2015 05:08 AM, maderios wrote:

> Strangely, it works partially now, only for this thread 'debian-user
> list problem'. I receive mail with this thread but I can't receive mail
> from other threads.
> About my spam box: I watch it very often. It is empty.

Maderios is your problem that you do not see 'your' post in your inbox?
If that is your problem, gmail is not going to put your post in your 
inbox, you have a folder named 'all mail', use it and you will find your 
post there and it will display your post in treaded form for you.
-- 
Debian Jessie - KDE 4.14.2  - EXT4 - AMD64 at sda10
Registered Linux User #380263

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158883

On Sun 11 Oct 2015 at 09:01:12 -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:

> On 10/11/2015 05:08 AM, maderios wrote:
> 
> >Strangely, it works partially now, only for this thread 'debian-user
> >list problem'. I receive mail with this thread but I can't receive mail
> >from other threads.
> >About my spam box: I watch it very often. It is empty.
> 
> Maderios is your problem that you do not see 'your' post in your inbox?
> If that is your problem, gmail is not going to put your post in your inbox,
> you have a folder named 'all mail', use it and you will find your post there
> and it will display your post in treaded form for you.

Why do you assume the list sends maderios' list mail to a gmail account?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web