Ralph Aichinger (HE12025-06-29):
> Nothing related to spam or server-side bouncing, or maybe even to the
> intended purpose of bouncing, but I absolutely love bouncing mails
> in mutt instead of forwarding. I need some mail on the address
> I use on my mobile: Just bounce it. I only d
KIM failure due to some added and
> changed headers. If both fail then this will additionally be a DMARC
> failure.
SPF and its ilk are quite another kettle of fish. Since it is the
receiver who decides to act on those policies (or not), this isn't
relevant to the case which started this th
tead do a forward but then I'd have to edit away the extra junk
that forwarding adds.
The number of people using email in any serious manner is dwindling and
most users do not know anything about headers or the sender
authentication mechanisms. I personally would not try to talk anyone
through
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:58:54AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> I think "bouncing" is something that should really be done on a
> server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.
Nothing related to spam or server-side bouncing, or maybe even to the
intended
to...@tuxteam.de (HE12025-06-28):
> MUA "bounce" is not exactly the same (the user has a chance to
> specify *which* address to send the bounce to, for one), but
> technically so close (as much of the headers as possible remains
> unchanged), that calling it a bounce does make sense.
This is not a
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 11:52:33AM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Am Sa, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:11:09 +0900 schrieb John Crawley:
> > > It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
> > > https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce
> > Mutt seems to have its own set of definitions which mutt users
Am Sa, Jun 28, 2025 at 10:11:09 +0900 schrieb John Crawley:
It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
https://github.com/mjg59/jargon/blob/master/bounce
Mutt seems to have its own set of definitions which mutt users will need
to grasp.
I can assure you that mutt’s meaning of bounce is older
On 27/06/2025 23:46, Greg wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as the email has
already been delivered to its recipients.
I am not proposing anything. I am *explaining*.
On 27/06/2025 17:44, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 05:04:14PM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
BTW why does your message here have my email address as To:, and CC: to the
list, even though I had no Reply-to: header in the message you are replying to?
Because I replied using "group
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 16:43:00 +0200
Nicolas George wrote:
> Do people our age need explaining that words can have multiple
> meanings, especially technical words used in different fields?
Hear, hear. Especially after this thread has shown exactly that to a
fault.
--
Does anybody read signatures
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:47 AM Greg wrote:
>
> On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >>
> >> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
> >> your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as the email has
> >> already been delivered to its recipients.
> >
> > I am not
Greg (HE12025-06-27):
> It is not the accepted meaning of the term.
Did you not already tell that? Was not Greg Wooledge precisely replying
to that?
--
Nicolas George
On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>
>> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
>> your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as the email has
>> already been delivered to its recipients.
>
> I am not proposing anything. I am *explaining*.
>
> This is the termi
Greg (HE12025-06-27):
> What is a Bounce Email? Definition: A bounce email is an email that has
> not been delivered to its recipient. It is sent back to the sender with
> an error message.
>
> https://www.altospam.com/en/glossary/bounce/
Do people our age need explaining that not everything
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 13:46:40 -, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, what we're talking about here is what mutt does when you
> > press the "b" key. It queues up a message for delivery, where the
>
> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by t
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:19:22PM -, Greg wrote:
> What is a Bounce Email? Definition: A bounce email is an email that has
> not been delivered to its recipient. It is sent back to the sender with
> an error message.
>
> https://www.altospam.com/en/glossary/bounce/
The word "bounce" in
On 2025-06-27, Nicolas George wrote:
> Greg (HE12025-06-27):
>> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*
>
> No, that is not accurate. Server rejecting a mail and server bouncing a
> mail are different mechanism.
What is a Bounce Email? Definition: A bounce email is an
Greg (HE12025-06-27):
> Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*
No, that is not accurate. Server rejecting a mail and server bouncing a
mail are different mechanism.
The server rejects the mail by returning an error code at SMTP level. No
bounce is generated.
If the ser
On 2025-06-27, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> To be clear, what we're talking about here is what mutt does when you
> press the "b" key. It queues up a message for delivery, where the
Bounce can and does mean a rejection of the email by the *server*, so
your proposal seems nonsensical or confusing, as
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 05:04:14PM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
[...]
> I may be wrong here but my understanding of "bounce" is that the software
> responsible for delivering a message (what I referred to as the "server")
> decides not to deliver it, and sends it back to the original address. So
oc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
and
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/FAQ#The_lists_are_spam-laden.2C_I_want_to_help_you
So it looks as if resending a spam
-3.6.6
>
> The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
> and
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/FAQ#The_lists_are_spam-laden.2C_I_want_to_help_you
>
> So it looks as if resendin
should really be done on a
server, not by a user email agent, even a "good" one.
Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin,
using the "Resent*" fields:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
The Debian Wiki has these
RFC so the person
in the discussion can get the terms they are using correct. ("forward"
versus "relay" tends to trigger them because they are not the same
thing in email-speak).
> Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin, using
&g
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:29:23PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:58:54 +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> > The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
>
> The fou
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:58:54 +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ListMaster/ListArchiveSpam#nominate
The fourth option there says:
* Use your mail client's bounce/resend/redirect functional
e.
Even so, "resend" is often available, either built-in or as a plugin, using the
"Resent*" fields:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.6
The Debian Wiki has these suggestions for how to deal with spam:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/List
On 2025-06-24, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> This like sounds like good and important advice, but how do you "bounce the
>> original message"?
>
> By using the "bounce" feature of your MUA. Only good ones have it.
>
>> Does that mean forward the message to the report-listspam?
>
> No. Forwarding an
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Frank Weißer wrote:
> Wherever you think it's neccessary;
> but, first of all: You were informed by tomas, not to quote the original
> posting! Why do you repeat doing so?
I think because people don't even realise what their MUAs do. If
you have been top-p
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:18:05PM -, Greg wrote:
> On 2025-06-24, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> >> This like sounds like good and important advice, but how do you "bounce the
> >> original message"?
> >
> > By using the "bounce" feature of your MUA. Only good ones have it.
> >
> >> Does that me
a favour, you bounce the original message
> > > > to to help the list spam team train
> > > > their filters (I did).
> >
> > > This like sounds like good and important advice, but how do you "bounce
> > the
> > > original message"?
[..
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:50 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 16:33:38 -0700, Dan Hitt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:09 AM wrote:
> > > if you want to do everyone a favour, you bounce the original message
> > > to to help the list spam team t
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 16:33:38 -0700, Dan Hitt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:09 AM wrote:
> > if you want to do everyone a favour, you bounce the original message
> > to to help the list spam team train
> > their filters (I did).
> This like sounds like good and i
t all; it will make minimal header
changes.
> Does that mean forward the message to the report-listspam?
>
> Do you need to attach text to it to explain why it is spam?
>
> (Is this something i can do from gmail?)
I have no idea - I do not use gmail; spend some time to see if it has
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:09 AM wrote:
>
>
> Please, don't do that. You amplify the spam and incommodate the ~3k
> subscribers of this list. Then you top-post and include the full spam
> body, to make extra sure everybody has seen it.
>
> Not good.
>
> if
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:45:43AM +0200, 🦓 wrote:
> Schick einfach das Geld rüber und verpiss Dich aus geldbefreiten
> Kommunistinnenkommunen!
Bravo. That must have felt... great for you.
Please, don't do that. You amplify the spam and incommodate the ~3k
subscribers of this list. T
> Those are created at boot time, by udev.
I unde5rstand.
>
> That depends on how you describe partitions in /etc/fstab. If you use
> the device name, then almost certainly yes. If you use the label or
> UUID, then no.
>
Oh, that is cool, as I am using only UUID in fstab. Thus, just clone the d
> If you simply clone the system from one hardware system to another, are
> you confident that it will work?
Yes.
>
> I expect that the two different hardware systems would require separate
> sets of drivers and configurations for those drivers.
Nope, kernel knows.
> Also, depending on the operati
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 06:56:07PM +0100, piorunz wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Same here, I am on GMX mailbox too, received a warning recently that I
> will be unsubscribed forcibly because my e-mail provider GMX rejected
> spam Debian list is sending towards me. LOL. Maybe Debia
Hi Thomas,
Same here, I am on GMX mailbox too, received a warning recently that I
will be unsubscribed forcibly because my e-mail provider GMX rejected
spam Debian list is sending towards me. LOL. Maybe Debian e-mail server
could improve filtering so I don't receive any spam in the first
essary overreaction
concept without any (in my view) loss of meaning:
This case is not like the other case...
It all depends whether we're trying to discuss a technical subject (how
the list handles bounces) and discuss requests for what might make
things better for us (e.g. not count emails
6.html
Obvious spam.
> Naturally, I did not so much as open the item.
If i would trust in my web browser to protect me then i would look at
what lurks behind the link "TERMS OF SERVICE" at docs.google.com.
But i am not _that_ curious.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
As a side note..I got the message, assuming you mean the one indicating it
was from new service with account statement or some such.
Naturally, I did not so much as open the item.
seems like a broad list attempt, assuming this is the post you are
referencing of course.
Kare
On Sun, 11 Aug 2
On 8/11/24 17:11, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Normally GMX puts spam into a separate box where i can unjail it if
i deem it not guilty. (Happens often enough.)
* they do actually filter some extreme stuff out that I believe is
required by law or somesuch. I never see it, so I don't know ex
Hi,
debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> You don't need to run a mailserver to do something similar. I simply
> told my ISP (Zen) not to filter spam out of my mail.
Normally GMX puts spam into a separate box where i can unjail it if
i deem it not guilty. (Happens often enough.)
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 08:25:09PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> How do you then explain that it lasted 2 days until i got affected
> exactly after i challenged the (potential) troll by stating:
> "although i seem not to be worth to be targeted by our bounce assassin,"
>
> Between the f
on't need to run a mailserver to do something similar. I simply
told my ISP (Zen) not to filter spam out of my mail. They send it
unfiltered* to me and my MUA filters it out using bogofilter. Works
very well for me; I suppose you do have to have a 'sensible' ISP.
* they do actually fi
Hi,
i wrote:
> > debian-user is the only mailing list where i ever
> > witnessed that a troll exploited the unscubscription habits to
> > throw out multiple users.
Andy Smith wrote:
> I was here when those events occurred and that is not what happened.
> [...]
> It was just a bug in Debian's list
e next mail is delivered to you correctly the bounce
score resets, so it is quite hard to get unsubscribed for rejecting
spam.
> > we can assume it will be rare that GMX and Debian will disagree over
> > spam score
>
> I refrain from developing a proof-of-concept how to exploi
ems by first asking how many
mail providers differ slightly from the list servers assessment and
reaction.
As next step i would ask the list masters to consider ignoring bounces
if the mail has a nearly-spam score on the Debian list. In such a case
it is likely that other servers see a barely-spam s
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 01:51:50PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> i just received a message from the list server that my mail provider
> GMX has rejected a spam message which the Debian list allowed to pass
> by a tiny not-spam margin.
> From this quite unsuspicious situation th
On Sunday, 11 August 2024 07:51:50 -04 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i just received a message from the list server that my mail provider
> GMX has rejected a spam message which the Debian list allowed to pass
> by a tiny not-spam margin.
> From this quite unsuspicious situat
Hi,
i just received a message from the list server that my mail provider
GMX has rejected a spam message which the Debian list allowed to pass
by a tiny not-spam margin.
From this quite unsuspicious situation the automat of Debian Listmaster
Team derived the threat to unsubscribe me.
I see the
to get EL to stop putting subscribed email into "known spam" is
>> futile. The mechanism EL provides to avoid such diversions doesn't work
>> with debian mailing list posts.
>> :~(
> Sounds like its time to turn off Earthlink's Spam filtering
I would
Felix Miata wrote:
> Trying to get EL to stop putting subscribed email into "known spam" is
> futile. The mechanism EL provides to avoid such diversions doesn't work
> with debian mailing list posts.
Quit using EL email. Use Pobox. Yes, it costs money. It's
utting subscribed email into "known spam" is
> futile. The mechanism EL provides to avoid such diversions doesn't work
> with debian mailing list posts.
>
> :~(
Sounds like its time to turn off Earthlink's Spam filtering and teach
SeaMonkey Mail, what *IS* spam and wha
[ Sent directly to debian-user@lists. ]
> FWIW, this reply goes to list because I expect high probability Stefan would
> not
> see it otherwise. Most mailing list posts flow through to me unimpeded. Not so
> with Stefan's. AFAICT, every one of his is captured by Earthlink.ne
7;s "known
spam" folder. The only ways I can see them are via the web archive, and by
opening
webmail, so that I can extract them from "known spam".
Stefan's isn't the only, but few others from any source become repeats, one of
which is every notification o
Yes, this is, where the entry "i386" is put in. I remember, to execute the
command "dpkg --add-architecture i386" a very long time ago.
Thus, aptitude now knows about it.
Zhanks for making things clearer.
Best
Hans
> Indeed, multi-arch is a dpkg thing. The list of current architectures
> is k
I am wondering, why aptitude is showing me (incorrectlly?) libllvm*:i386 and
apt-get not.
I have no i386 entry in sources.list, but where does aptitude get its
information?
apt-cache search libllvm | grep i386
aptitude search libllvm | grep i386
Am Montag, 27. Mai 2024, 17:51:23 CEST schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 04:59:55PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Eben King (12024-05-27):
> > > Is there an easier way to uninstall a package and everything it brought
> > > in
> > > at one swell foop? Thanks.
> >
> > The packa
On 2024-04-18 at 11:53, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 12:43, Hans wrote:
>
>> But the "Sorry" mail I did send without the spam tag. However, I
>> get it WITH the spamtag, as all mails get the DCIM=false tag in the
>> header (created by the debian s
On 18/04/2024 12:43, Hans wrote:
But the "Sorry" mail I did send without the spam tag. However, I get it WITH
the spamtag, as all mails get the DCIM=false tag in the header (created by the
debian servers) and megamailservers.eu add the SPAM tag.
Or you could use a less s
Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 17:21:41 CEST schrieb rtnetz...@windstream.net:
To make clear: The first time I replied, I forgot to remove the spam tag.
But the "Sorry" mail I did send without the spam tag. However, I get it WITH
the spamtag, as all mails get the DCIM=false tag in
rtnetz...@windstream.net (12024-04-18):
> As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message leaves
> his control.
I very much doubt it, we would see “*****SPAM* Re:” rather than
“Re: *****SPAM*”.
And his recent “Sorry” mail was not tagged.
https://lists.debi
As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message leaves
his control.
- Original Message -
From: "Nicolas George"
To: "debian-user"
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:13:44 AM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Marking as spam [was: *SPAM* Re:
Hans (12024-04-18):
> As I can not fix it
You can manually remove “*****SPAM*” from the mail when you reply.
You could even automate it on your end.
--
Nicolas George
Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 11:53:38 CEST schrieb to...@tuxteam.de:
Hi Tomas,
this is by debian servers, I talked about this for a while. Because the debian
servers mark some things in the header, megamailservers.eu mark them as spam
and add SPAM to the headline.
As I can not fix it
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:35:58 +
Andy Smith wrote:
Hello Andy,
>I suspect that your text above has come out sounding more entitled
>than you intended, as English is not your first language.
In fairness to Hans, he did go on to explain as much.
--
Regards _ "Valid sig separator is {d
Hi Hans,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Hans wrote:
> I only hope, it will not happen the same fate like usermin and webmin
> happened
> to: It was once removed from the repoi with th ereason "spagehetti code, bad
> code" and then no one ever took a look again to it, although many, m
Hi, Hans
is it your mail setup adding that *SPAM* decoration to the
subject?
Just curious...
cheers
--
t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I only hope, it will not happen the same fate like usermin and webmin happened
to: It was once removed from the repoi with th ereason "spagehetti code, bad
code" and then no one ever took a look again to it, although many, many years
of coding passed by.
And webmin and usermin are still develo
Hi,
Andy Smith wrote:
> [...] I argue that at present it
> isn't a good idea to just reject all DKIM failures like OP's mailbox
> provider appears to be doing.
Just for the records:
The mails in question don't get rejected but rather marked as spam
and then get delive
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:16:07AM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> And some dkim seems setup with the intention that it should not be used
> for mailinglusts:
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
> d=dow.land;
> s=20210720;
> h=From:In-Reply-To:References:Su
with ESMTP id
> 425I9ZEK112497
>for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:09:37 +
>
> --- snap ---
>
> White mails get the dkim=pass and spam mails got dkim=fail (as you see above).
A great many legitimate emails will fail DKIM so it is not a great
idea to reject every email that
; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:09:37 +
--- snap ---
White mails get the dkim=pass and spam mails got dkim=fail (as you see above).
A great many legitimate emails will fail DKIM so it is not a great
idea to reject every email that does so. I don't think that you are
going to have a good time usi
EK112497
> for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:09:37 +
>
> --- snap ---
>
> White mails get the dkim=pass and spam mails got dkim=fail (as you see above).
A great many legitimate emails will fail DKIM so it is not a great
idea to reject every email that does so. I don't think that you a
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Hi all,
> I believe, I found the reason, why mails are marked as spam and others not.
>
> All spam mails shjow this entry in the header:
>
> --- sninp ---
>
> Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; s
Hi all,
I believe, I found the reason, why mails are marked as spam and others not.
All spam mails shjow this entry in the header:
--- sninp ---
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu; spf=none
smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail35c50.megamailservers.eu
Hans wrote:
> HI Brad,
>
> I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly
> mail was marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail
> again is marked as spam.
>
> We know, there is nothing unusual with your mail, but it is again
> ma
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:36:25 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly
>mail was marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail
>again is marked as spam.
Spam/ham training is not, IME, a single shot affair. Ho
HI Brad,
I do not believe, it is a training problem. Why? Well, your formerly mail was
marked as spam. So I marked it as ham. Now, your second mail again is marked
as spam.
We know, there is nothing unusual with your mail, but it is again marked as
spam. Even, when I explicity marked your
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 13:53:49 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>It should be well trained
Spam training is an ongoing process
>But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to
>another, although I had changed nothing.
because the spam changes. What's
Hans (12024-03-06):
> I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained
> and
> almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
Hi.
It is probably not the reason for you problem now, but it is important
to note that in the “several years” since
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> Re: *****SPAM* Re: Spam from the list?
> In-Reply-To: <20240306112253.55e25...@earth.stargate.org.uk>
referring the mail
> > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:22:53 +
> > From: Brad Rogers
> > Message-ID: <20240306112253.55e25...@earth.stargate
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Hi Brad,
>
> I am using this spamfilter now for several years. It should be well trained
> and
> almost until about 4 months I never had any problems with it.
>
> But until then suddenly the false positives increased from one day to
> ano
with mails from the debian forum! This looks
weired for me. Other spammails are still well recognized and I get no false
positives from any other site.
Maybe this is by chance. But mails, which are recognized as spam are looking
not fishy in any kind. Even a mail sent by myself to the forum was
Hans wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > you perhaps subscribed to one of the "Resent-*" lists ?
> >
> Not as far as I know.
>
> > > Subject: *SPAM* Bug#1065537: ITP: bleak-retry-connector --
> > > Connector for Bleak Clients that handles tra
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 11:19:27 +0100
Hans wrote:
Hello Hans,
>Does one see any reason, why this is considered as spam???
Further to what Thomas says; You haven't told your spam filtering that
it's ham. If you don't train your spam filters, it's never going to get
any b
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> I changed nothing and suddenly many mails from debian-user
> (but not all, only some) are recognized as spam.
But the one you posted here did not come from debian-user.
So maybe what changed is an inadverted subscription to one of
debian-bugs-d...@lists.debian.org
Am Mittwoch, 6. März 2024, 12:10:57 CET schrieb Dan Ritter:
> >
> > X-Spam-Flag: YES
> >
> > X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
>
> What sets these two headers?
>
I do not know. So I asked on this list.
What I believe is, that the X-Spam-Flag: YES is set somehow on the wa
Hi Thomas,
> you perhaps subscribed to one of the "Resent-*" lists ?
>
Not as far as I know.
> > Subject: *SPAM* Bug#1065537: ITP: bleak-retry-connector --
> > Connector for Bleak Clients that handles transient connection failures
>
> The mark "
Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
> spam than before. Something must have changed.
>
> I examined the header of the mails, but did not see any unusual.
>
> Below I send the header of an example o
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
> spam than before.
> [...]
> Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you can see the
> reason?
The message does not look like it came to you via debian-user:
Hi folks,
during the last moonths I get more mails from the debian-user list marked as
spam than before. Something must have changed.
I examined the header of the mails, but did not see any unusual.
Below I send the header of an example of such a mail, maybe you can see the
reason?
On my
On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 01:49:17PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > [...] (it's actually a logistic function [1]).
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
> > Looking forward to Yet Another Of Those Nerdy Monster Threads ;-)
>
> Since it's happeni
Hi,
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> [...] (it's actually a logistic function [1]).
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
> Looking forward to Yet Another Of Those Nerdy Monster Threads ;-)
Since it's happening periodically with about the same participants,
shouldn't we rather try to mod
On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 25.12.2023 um 08:56:41 Uhr schrieb Brad Rogers:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 16:50:13 +1100
> > Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >
> > Hello Zenaan,
> >
> > >OMG money! I, being Debian User it
On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 25.12.2023 um 08:56:41 Uhr schrieb Brad Rogers:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 16:50:13 +1100
> > Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >
> > Hello Zenaan,
> >
> > >OMG money! I, being Debian User it
Am 25.12.2023 um 08:56:41 Uhr schrieb Brad Rogers:
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 16:50:13 +1100
> Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
> Hello Zenaan,
>
> >OMG money! I, being Debian User it
>
> The best thing to do is ignore SPAM.
>
> If you *must* reply, don't quote the
1 - 100 of 2821 matches
Mail list logo
