> 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
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 whole thing and send it to the list
*again*.
Thank you.
--
Regards _ "Valid sig separ
> I'd check /var/log/exim4/mainlog first, obviously.
>
> In addition to that, open one of the spam messages in a competent MUA
> and examine the full headers. You should see one or more "Received:"
> headers. Every time the message is handed off to a new MTA, a new
Hi Reco,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 02:34:29PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:19:24PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > The log seems quite unhelpful here, though I may be missing
> > something. Here is an example:
>
> I disagree. There's nothing to miss here, thus you
Hi.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:19:24PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> The log seems quite unhelpful here, though I may be missing
> something. Here is an example:
I disagree. There's nothing to miss here, thus you're correct.
> 2023-03-29 00:07:19 1phIPT-0047NQ-0H <= <> H=(LOCALHOSTNAME)
Hi Jeremy!
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 05:03:47PM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
>
> On 30/3/23 16:30, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I'm getting a significant number of spam messages being sent to my MTA
> > (exim) for the address FRPJXbKeKuek at sport.qc.ca, and now I'm
> >
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:00:01PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:30:49AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I wonder if anyone has any idea about how to track this down?
>
> I'd check /var/log/exim4/mainlog first, obviously.
> For instance, your mail was sent to my MT
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:00:01PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:30:49AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I wonder if anyone has any idea about how to track this down?
>
> I'd check /var/log/exim4/mainlog first, obviously.
In addition to that, open one of th
Hi.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:30:49AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I wonder if anyone has any idea about how to track this down?
I'd check /var/log/exim4/mainlog first, obviously.
For instance, your mail was sent to my MTA by bendel.d.o, as is
should be:
$ grep ZmNnhCgr7-N.A.uSE.A2UJkB
On 30/3/23 16:30, Julian Gilbey wrote:
I'm getting a significant number of spam messages being sent to my MTA
(exim) for the address FRPJXbKeKuek at sport.qc.ca, and now I'm
starting to see some sent to www-data at aether.toine.be. What is
disturbing is that the machine is on a loc
I'm getting a significant number of spam messages being sent to my MTA
(exim) for the address FRPJXbKeKuek at sport.qc.ca, and now I'm
starting to see some sent to www-data at aether.toine.be. What is
disturbing is that the machine is on a local network, and my
internet-facing route
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:08:43AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Ok, a question about anti-spam software...
>
> My new server will be a multi-domain MX gateway/anti-spam system running
> postfix with postscreen enabled, and Amavisd-New+SpamAssassin (unless
> someone has a be
Ok, a question about anti-spam software...
My new server will be a multi-domain MX gateway/anti-spam system running
postfix with postscreen enabled, and Amavisd-New+SpamAssassin (unless
someone has a better suggestion).
Since it has been a looong time - are there any better options for an
anti
wiki is to be kept up to date by *anyone* who
> > can provide a contribution (including spell checking!).
>
> You are right, of course. I did not mean to suggest a reluctance in
> principle, but a reluctance in domain expertise. (As mentioned, I
> don't even know what measures the
On 2021-01-25 at 08:57, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:16:38AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
>> nb.net no longer run their own MTA (maybe for just this reason?),
>> farming it out to userservices.net. As a result they increasingly
>> unresponsive to complaints. I have
d not mean to suggest a reluctance in principle,
but a reluctance in domain expertise. (As mentioned, I don't even know what
measures the debian lists use against spam.) Thanks; I will consider.
Kind regards,
John
On 2021-01-25 14:57, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:39:14AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
On 2021-01-25 08:56, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
...
Look, I don't fear spam as much as provider's greed. ... IMO the best
anti-spam measures are a good MUA and a knowledg
d
> >are doing their best to kill it.
> >
> >A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.
>
> That comment led me to wonder about what contribution pgp/gpg might make to
> fighting spam. That led to pgp.mit.edu/faq.html, which has this ...
...although I didn't mean
On Lu, 25 ian 21, 11:11:44, John Kaufmann wrote:
> On 2021-01-25 08:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > > > In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
> > > > * debian-user
> > > > 1 bounce out of mails in o
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, Andy Smith wrote:
to point them at fastmail.com.
I've no association with fastmail.com, I just find them pleasant to
deal with when helping people.
an other solution is "getmail", available as a debian package,
and also, I suppose, wit
ent led me to wonder about what contribution pgp/gpg might make to
fighting spam. That led to pgp.mit.edu/faq.html, which has this ...
Q: I think spammers got my email address from the PGP keyserver. What can I do?
A: Yes, there have been reports of spammers harvesting addresses from PGP
keyse
On 2021-01-25 07:56 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
A pity that pgp/gpg hasn't caught on better.
fud - fear uncertainty and doubt
if you use encryption you'll attract the attention of the man
On 2021-01-25 08:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
* debian-user
1 bounce out of mails in one day (%, kick-score is 80%)
First: How common is this occurrence for oth
On 2021-01-25 02:36, Andy Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
... The best practice when dealing with a piece of mail that has been
identified as so spammy that you don't want to receive it is not to
file it away in a spam folder, but to reject it at
On Monday 25 January 2021 08:56:04 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:29:54AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd
> > > be strange, because I don't
On Monday 25 January 2021 08:29:54 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd be
> > strange, because I don't see them...
>
> No. They're done on the receiving end. I'm just letting
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:56:04PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Sometimes I get the impression that some economic actors hate mail
> because it can't be fenced-off as easily as the "social" silos and
> are doing their best to kill it.
That may be true, but it's not the reasoning behind the cha
Hi John,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:16:38AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> nb.net no longer run their own MTA (maybe for just this reason?),
> farming it out to userservices.net. As a result they increasingly
> unresponsive to complaints. I have not figured out my next step.
As mentioned, I do sel
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:29:54AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd be
> > strange, because I don't see them...
>
> No. They're done on the receiving end. I'm just
On 2021-01-25 04:24, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:55:53 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 25 ian 21, 01:03:07, John Kaufmann wrote:
...
Is there an intelligent way to manage when spam control efforts
break the system they want to protect? Do the debian lists attempt
to control spam by
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:17:34PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Are those modifications added by the Debian mailing list? That'd be
> strange, because I don't see them...
No. They're done on the receiving end. I'm just letting you know that
there's some horrible shit out here in the real wor
On 2021-01-25 04:05, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:55:53AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 25 ian 21, 01:03:07, John Kaufmann wrote:
[...] and can never get my ISP to care about this.
We can at least pester them about it. If enough of us do, eventually
they will hav
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:11:51AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > > In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
> > > * debian-user
> > > 1 bounce out of mails in one day (%, kick-score is 80%)
> >
> > First
On 2021-01-25 01:55, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 25 ian 21, 01:03:07, John Kaufmann wrote:
...
... the background info links ... explain the origin
of the problem in spam control, and why bouncing list mail is not
nice, and what can and should be done about spam. I'm sympathetic to
the pr
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:03:07AM -0500, John Kaufmann wrote:
> > In the last seven days we've seen bounces for the following list:
> > * debian-user
> > 1 bounce out of mails in one day (%, kick-score is 80%)
>
> First: How common is this occurrence for others?
It is common enough that it
email I easily identify it as
spam. I don't know if automatic filtering of posts to various Debian
lists would be feasible.
; kick-score,
>
> It could happen quickly with a misconfigured e-mail server / spam
> filter, which is why the warning is being sent out.
>
Or with a mail server that's down for a while, or where the Internet
connection is down, and in my case at least, when Debian's DNS serv
1 - 100 of 2785 matches
Mail list logo
