Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #166926 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-22 02:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-23 14:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-22 02:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 03:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-22 04:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-04-22 08:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 08:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Mimiko <vbvbrj@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 15:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 18:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-23 00:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-23 01:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <garyroach@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 00:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 02:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-04-30 12:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 16:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 16:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 21:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 21:10 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-30 21:20 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-05-10 20:20 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@googlemail.com> - 2016-05-10 20:50 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2016-05-10 22:10 +0200
Re: pastebinning (was: Posts don't show on list) Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@googlemail.com> - 2016-05-10 22:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 21:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-30 22:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-05-01 00:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-05-01 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-05-01 03:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 13:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-05-01 18:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 19:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-05-02 04:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-05-02 13:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> - 2016-04-30 01:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-30 01:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-04-23 06:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-04-22 09:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 09:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Harris Paltrowitz <harrisupstate@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 13:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 14:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 15:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-04-22 15:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-04-22 16:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 19:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-28 03:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 18:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-28 21:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 03:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-30 02:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-30 14:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 15:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-30 18:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 23:00 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-05-01 00:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> - 2016-05-01 01:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 01:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-05-01 01:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 18:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-22 19:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 19:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 21:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-23 00:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 01:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 13:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Harris Paltrowitz <harrisupstate@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-04-22 14:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-22 11:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-04-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-22 11:20 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-04-22 13:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 18:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-04-22 19:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-04-23 06:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 13:50 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-04-23 14:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 21:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2016-04-22 21:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-04-22 21:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 14:10 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 21:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-22 22:30 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-04-23 01:40 +0200
Re: Posts don't show on list cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-04-23 14:00 +0200
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtwJj-39j-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167231 |
On Saturday 30 April 2016 00:53:47 Gene Heskett wrote: > With > gmail, the only practical way to do that is to subscribe using two > different names, and always send to only one, but you will then get the > list echo back on the 2nd account. Its a PITA with gmail, but its the > only way I know of to get around their duplicate deletion. Nonsense. That is a most impractical way of dealing with it. I deal with it by sending via my ISP's smtp server. No hassle and works fine. Others may have other simple ways of dealing with it. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtC2m-7C9-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167234 |
On Saturday 30 April 2016 02:39:38 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 30 April 2016 00:53:47 Gene Heskett wrote: > > With > > gmail, the only practical way to do that is to subscribe using two > > different names, and always send to only one, but you will then get > > the list echo back on the 2nd account. Its a PITA with gmail, but > > its the only way I know of to get around their duplicate deletion. > > Nonsense. That is a most impractical way of dealing with it. I deal > with it by sending via my ISP's smtp server. I do too. But the list echo never comes back TO THAT ADDRESS@SERVER. So you must maintain the sub to the other address or on a 2nd server. Most just turn off delivery back to the server they post thru. Mailfilters duplicate nuking doesn't prevent the duplicates in the two server or 2 addresses situation, each with the same message coming back in, which may, or more likely is not the case during that invocation. I've has as much as a 16 hour difference in incoming duplicates doing that. The best solution was to stop using gmail. And its like an Excedrin headache in that you've just removed the need for the headache powders. So I miss it like I'd miss a broken leg, or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. :) > No hassle and works > fine. Others may have other simple ways of dealing with it. For you maybe, but gmail has always been a broken solution in search of a problem to me. So it was just a shrug when they started denying my fetchmail access to port 995 a year ago. Problem solved by 6 # characters in the .fetchmailrc file. > Lisi Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtD86-4Q-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167237 |
On Saturday 30 April 2016 13:10:56 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 30 April 2016 02:39:38 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Saturday 30 April 2016 00:53:47 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > With > > > gmail, the only practical way to do that is to subscribe using two > > > different names, and always send to only one, but you will then get > > > the list echo back on the 2nd account. Its a PITA with gmail, but > > > its the only way I know of to get around their duplicate deletion. > > > > Nonsense. That is a most impractical way of dealing with it. I deal > > with it by sending via my ISP's smtp server. > > I do too. But the list echo never comes back TO THAT ADDRESS@SERVER. So > you must maintain the sub to the other address or on a 2nd server. Most > just turn off delivery back to the server they post thru. Mailfilters > duplicate nuking doesn't prevent the duplicates in the two server or 2 > addresses situation, each with the same message coming back in, which > may, or more likely is not the case during that invocation. I've has as > much as a 16 hour difference in incoming duplicates doing that. The > best solution was to stop using gmail. And its like an Excedrin > headache in that you've just removed the need for the headache powders. > > So I miss it like I'd miss a broken leg, or a poke in the eye with a > sharp stick. :) > > > No hassle and works > > fine. Others may have other simple ways of dealing with it. > > For you maybe, but gmail has always been a broken solution in search of a > problem to me. So it was just a shrug when they started denying my > fetchmail access to port 995 a year ago. Problem solved by 6 # > characters in the .fetchmailrc file. Your life always seems so unnecessarily complicated, Gene. :-/ Why HAVE two addresses???? Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtFWi-2dj-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167239 |
On Saturday 30 April 2016 09:29:03 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 30 April 2016 13:10:56 Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 30 April 2016 02:39:38 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Saturday 30 April 2016 00:53:47 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > With > > > > gmail, the only practical way to do that is to subscribe using > > > > two different names, and always send to only one, but you will > > > > then get the list echo back on the 2nd account. Its a PITA with > > > > gmail, but its the only way I know of to get around their > > > > duplicate deletion. > > > > > > Nonsense. That is a most impractical way of dealing with it. I > > > deal with it by sending via my ISP's smtp server. > > > > I do too. But the list echo never comes back TO THAT ADDRESS@SERVER. > > So you must maintain the sub to the other address or on a 2nd > > server. Most just turn off delivery back to the server they post > > thru. Mailfilters duplicate nuking doesn't prevent the duplicates > > in the two server or 2 addresses situation, each with the same > > message coming back in, which may, or more likely is not the case > > during that invocation. I've has as much as a 16 hour difference in > > incoming duplicates doing that. The best solution was to stop using > > gmail. And its like an Excedrin headache in that you've just > > removed the need for the headache powders. > > > > So I miss it like I'd miss a broken leg, or a poke in the eye with a > > sharp stick. :) > > > > > No hassle and works > > > fine. Others may have other simple ways of dealing with it. > > > > For you maybe, but gmail has always been a broken solution in search > > of a problem to me. So it was just a shrug when they started > > denying my fetchmail access to port 995 a year ago. Problem solved > > by 6 # characters in the .fetchmailrc file. > > Your life always seems so unnecessarily complicated, Gene. :-/ > > Why HAVE two addresses???? Because gmail see's the echo from the list, going back to the address that it was posted from, as a duplicate, and deletes it. So you see the post, confirming it got there by seeing it on the address you didn't post it from. This duplicate deletion I have spent at least an hour on the phone to google, trying to convince them that doing so screws with every mailing list you are one because if you only subscribe once, as JohnDoe@gmail.com, you never have confirmation a confirmation that it got there in the first place without going thru all the bs of looking up the server with a web browser. By the time you find it, you've wasted 3 or 5 minutes that I could have used far more productively if gmail wasn't such a jerk about it. Some of the questions I have asked were so far off the beaten path, and so I posted again, no response, but the third time someone did pipe up and tell me they had indeed seen all 3 posts, but its likely the no-response was because they couldn't help by answering. So I was left re-posting the same question 3 times and looking like a bigger idiot than I hope I am, just to get a single reply. One that basically told me to STFU. I did eventually suss my problem out, but when I posted my how-to, the "experts" then lambasted me for doing it that way. But its worked for me for about 5 years now, thru 3 installs, flawlessly. On this little home network I use host files so I see no valid reason to waste space and time with dhcp. But, had I also subscribed as FredDoe@gmail.com, I would have seen that every message I sent as JohnDoe@gmail.com would have come back to FredDoe@gmail.com, and since I sort to folders in KMail by the list address, everything would have worked just peachy. KMail has no problem as it can set your posting name@address by the folder your are in. But thats an ability it didn't have, or I didn't know about, at the time this first boiled over 10 years ago. Thanks Lisi. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtK9A-5Lq-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167246 |
On Saturday 30 April 2016 17:26:48 Gene Heskett wrote: > Because gmail see's the echo from the list, going back to the address > that it was posted from, as a duplicate, and deletes it. So you see the > post, confirming it got there by seeing it on the address you didn't > post it from. If, like you. you like a complicated life. As I said, I achieve the effect just by posting through my ISP's SMTP server. I get all my posts "echoed" back. It is very simple. So there is no need at all for two addresses. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtLfj-6Ug-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167256 |
Lisi writes: > If, like you. you like a complicated life. As I said, I achieve the > effect just by posting through my ISP's SMTP server. In other words, you avoid Gmail problems by not using Gmail. Sensible solution and it's what I do as well, but people who for some reason must use Gmail need a different approach. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtMbo-7DP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167258 |
On 04/30/2016 06:05 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Lisi writes: >> If, like you. you like a complicated life. As I said, I achieve the >> effect just by posting through my ISP's SMTP server. > > In other words, you avoid Gmail problems by not using Gmail. Sensible > solution and it's what I do as well, but people who for some reason must > use Gmail need a different approach. > My domain is hosted on gmail, I run an exim mail server on my laptop and use fetchmail to pick up mail from a half dozen or so accounts and dovecot to run a local imap server. I have a fake domain known only to my mail system that is local to the laptop only. I bcc all mail to myself and always get a copy. -- Mike McGinn KD2CNU President, UU Congregation at Rock Tavern More kidneys than eyes ** Registered Linux User 377849
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtMl4-7HS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167262 |
On Saturday 30 April 2016 23:59:42 Mike McGinn wrote: > I bcc all mail to > myself and always get a copy. I said there had to be other simple solutions - I like that one! (Though mine makes better allowance for my appalling memory. :-/ ) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtMuK-7Od-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167258 |
Lisi writes: > I use a lot of Gmail facilities - just not their SMTP server, nor > their web interface!! I didn't know Gmail offered anything but email services. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Allen <marathon.durandal@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rtJGx-5xF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #167231 |
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 07:53:47PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 29 April 2016 18:33:07 Stephen Allen wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 06:33:33PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > > On 04/27/2016 04:21 PM, Stephen Allen wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:36PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it came right back. It shows as being 'Read', but it's > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > You're reading the 'All Mail' Gmail directory that's why. > > > > > > Copies don't come back to one's regular inbox, but will be in > > > > > > the all mail directory if my memory serves me. By default > > > > > > Gmail won't show them in the inbox in their Webmail Gmail or > > > > > > INBOX app. Using IMAP on mutt I don't see them either unless I > > > > > > enter the all mail directory. > > > > > > Actually, no. > > > > > > I let Gmail do my filtering and all of the list's mail gets filtered > > > into a separate folder. My posts show up there. > > > > You're telling me you put your sent mail in that folder too via a > > ruleset? Why do you want to see your sent email? > > I dunno what planet you are on, but I want to see my post coming back > from the list server to prove that the post made it to the list. With > gmail, the only practical way to do that is to subscribe using two > different names, and always send to only one, but you will then get the > list echo back on the 2nd account. Its a PITA with gmail, but its the > only way I know of to get around their duplicate deletion. Then gmail > changed the login about a year ago, so mine failed and I took that > server off my every 3 minute scan for new mail. And I don't miss the > headache of dealing with gmail as it reduces my pain killer input by > 99%. The list is archived online, if you're unsure about it getting to the list one can see it that way. Email is returned if it's undeliverable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqMrg-509-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166963 |
On Friday 22 April 2016 13:56:49 The Wanderer wrote: > Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses more > than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've never seen > anything that I recall to indicate that it does. It doesn't use MORE than the message ID. It doesn't use the message ID, so far as I can see, at all. It uses the subject header. That is why those using the Gmail interface munge threads so appallingly. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqMKC-5xq-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166978 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2016-04-22 at 12:41, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 22 April 2016 13:56:49 The Wanderer wrote: >> Interesting. Do you have any evidence for the idea that it uses >> more than just Message-ID? I can't prove that it doesn't, but I've >> never seen anything that I recall to indicate that it does. > > It doesn't use MORE than the message ID. It doesn't use the message > ID, so far as I can see, at all. It uses the subject header. That is > why those using the Gmail interface munge threads so appallingly. That's for threading purposes, though. I'm talking about what it uses for detecting duplicates so it can discard them; it obviously can't be using the Subject header for that, or users would never see more than one message per change of Subject. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqN3Y-5It-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166981 |
On Friday 22 April 2016 18:04:36 The Wanderer wrote: > I'm talking about what it uses > for detecting duplicates so it can discard them That is worth my while to investigate. I am a bit pushed at the moment, but will report back. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqOW6-7cw-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166983 |
On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 18:29:11 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 22 April 2016 18:04:36 The Wanderer wrote: > > I'm talking about what it uses > > for detecting duplicates so it can discard them > > That is worth my while to investigate. I am a bit pushed at the moment, but > will report back. It's a waste of time. Even if you conclusively demonstrated the offending header was Message-Id: (and it almost certainly is a major player) what would you do? Better is to avoid providers who think it fine to mess with your mail. People wouldn't accept Royal Mail or the US Postal Service doing it. As for duplicates: are the mails sent to the list and the one sent back duplicates? That is, identical in every regard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-23 00:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqRTY-Z0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166989 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2016-04-22 at 15:20, Brian wrote: > On Fri 22 Apr 2016 at 18:29:11 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> On Friday 22 April 2016 18:04:36 The Wanderer wrote: >>> I'm talking about what it uses for detecting duplicates so it can >>> discard them >> >> That is worth my while to investigate. I am a bit pushed at the >> moment, but will report back. > > It's a waste of time. Even if you conclusively demonstrated the > offending header was Message-Id: (and it almost certainly is a major > player) what would you do? Better is to avoid providers who think it > fine to mess with your mail. People wouldn't accept Royal Mail or the > US Postal Service doing it. > > As for duplicates: are the mails sent to the list and the one sent > back duplicates? That is, identical in every regard? No; at minimum, the mails which are sent back have the List-ID header added, identifying the mailing list through which the message has been processed. (In my experience, usually there are other variances as well.) Google appears to treat them as if they were, however. That being precisely the problem. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-23 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqSwG-1vv-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166989 |
On Friday 22 April 2016 20:20:50 Brian wrote: > It's a waste of time. Even if you conclusively demonstrated the offending > header was Message-Id: (and it almost certainly is a major player) what > would you do? Better is to avoid providers who think it fine to mess with > your mail. People wouldn't accept Royal Mail or the US Postal Service > doing it. I have a particular instance, where it would be useful if I knew what to avoid in order to be allowed some "duplicates". I am now careful to ensure that they are not identical, but they are still sometimes treated as duplicates. If I were able to analyse why, I could avoid the deletions every time. > > As for duplicates: are the mails sent to the list and the one sent back > duplicates? That is, identical in every regard? No. It is a different situation involving "duplicates" and Gmail. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqInF-1Q8-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166957 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:12:04AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: [...] > In this case, what appears to happen is that Gmail assumes that > Message-ID is unique, and consequently that it only needs to keep one > copy of a message with any given Message-ID. Since the person sending a > mail already has one message with that Message-ID (in their Sent > folder), Gmail sees the incoming mail as a duplicate, and discards it. Sounds kinda plausible. Any Googler listening who'd care to shed light? C'mon, folks... > This means that the mailing-list software _could_ technically work > around this behavior by modifying the Message-ID of the received message > before it sends that message out to list members. > > That strikes me as a dreadful idea from a design perspective, however, > even just on basic principle.... A less brutal approach would be to drop (nearly-) dupes coming whithin a short period of time from googlemail... > > And... would you want to complicate a server setup just to cater to > > some client idiosyncracy? > > ...so my answer to this would be "definitely not". we seem to be in violent agreement here. Just live with the dupes, for me it's part of the landscape already (oh, lookee, a gmail!). [...] > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all > progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw But doesn't that contradict the above? (cool quote, btw). regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlcaF9IACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYvTACdFh1YD1J5oVPSmTOK3nqHuPrd tpMAn2C1Tv9ADaNAcseTd5XMmNfUpaB0 =GHyD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cbannister@slingshot.co.nz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-23 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rr44O-2hU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166960 |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 02:23:46PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:12:04AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > [...] > > > In this case, what appears to happen is that Gmail assumes that > > Message-ID is unique, and consequently that it only needs to keep one > > copy of a message with any given Message-ID. Since the person sending a > > mail already has one message with that Message-ID (in their Sent > > folder), Gmail sees the incoming mail as a duplicate, and discards it. > > Sounds kinda plausible. Any Googler listening who'd care to shed light? > C'mon, folks... I google but cannot help. :) -- The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. -- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harris Paltrowitz <harrisupstate@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqInE-1Q8-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166954 |
On 04/22/2016 07:48 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > If the client refuses to show you a mail, how would you go about to > solve it at the server level? And... would you want to complicate > a server setup just to cater to some client idiosyncracy? > > (Note that I don't have any direct experience with gmail, so what > I know is just hearsay, but it explains nicely why folks on gmail > have some tendency to... stutter) > > regards > - -- tomás > Okay, if this is some convoluted thing that Gmail does, then sure, I couldn't see complicating the Debian server just to overcome this. However, I think it would be nice if the Debian Mailing Lists homepage would have a simple one-line note alerting people to this... if people actually read the note, it could help them avoid the issue as well as cut down on this type of talk here on the list! As a new Debian user there are additional items I would recommend in terms of beginner-targeted documentation... perhaps I'll get involved with the documentation team. Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqIxk-1Ux-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #166959 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:26:33AM -0400, Harris Paltrowitz wrote: [...] > Okay, if this is some convoluted thing that Gmail does, then sure, I > couldn't see complicating the Debian server just to overcome this. > However, I think it would be nice if the Debian Mailing Lists > homepage would have a simple one-line note alerting people to > this... if people actually read the note, it could help them avoid > the issue as well as cut down on this type of talk here on the list! OTOH it makes for a nice conversation piece (and an opportunity to learn collectively things about mail :-) Perhaps some Googler chimes in and we learn even more. Who knows. > As a new Debian user there are additional items I would recommend in > terms of beginner-targeted documentation... perhaps I'll get > involved with the documentation team. That would be... awesome ♥♥♥ regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlcaGiUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbsqgCeMa0NVseqBO0mNGDBbm0C1PYs t/kAn0pzJdwUsTlfOlzawvsteQ2TEV8i =0e7J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web