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 a...@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.
