Web lists-archives.com

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag




On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:20:13 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:45:54 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> 
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> > > > > > > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to
> > > > > > > -user is from a non-subscriber.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe some people are using the one of the X-Spam* headers
> > > > > > and looking for the LDOSUBSCRIBER substring.  Which is extremely
> > > > > > non-obvious, and probably not a vector that ordinary users can
> > > > > > easily pursue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The presence of LDOSUBSCRIBER indicates the post is from a subscribed
> > > > > member. It absence tells you nothing about whether the person (as
> > > > > indicted by the From: header) is subscribed or not.
> > > > 
> > > > Agreed; I've never earned the privilege of that in my header.
> > > > I've sometimes wondered whether that's the reason I occasionally
> > > > fall foul of the spam filter, and have to re-post.
> > > 
> > > I cannot account for that (and I doubt listmaster will enlighten us) but
> > > this mail of yours has
> > > 
> > > Received: from david by alum with local (Exim 4.80)                                                                  
> > >         (envelope-from <david@alum>)                                                                                 
> > >         id 1eimCc-0000EV-Nv; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:13:18 -0600
> > > 
> > > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])                                                                     
> > >         by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP                                                                     
> > >         id B714B37A; Mon,  5 Feb 2018 19:13:44 +0000 (UTC)
> > > 
> > > Very timely.
> > 
> > Is that meant to tell me something (as you wrote "but")?
> 
> I recived B714B37A 26 seconds after you posted it. Just thought you
> would like the comfort of knowing your mail traversed the system
> just as quickly as others do.

Ah, OK, the timestamps. There's no need to worry about that. Every
email I send to my wife, sitting at the same table, crosses the
Atlantic twice, typically in under a minute, and sometimes much less.

By the way, I've never looked at those "id"s given there. Looking at
the line in exim's log, I assume it's the name of the spool files
when the email is queued between mutt and exim:

2018-02-05 13:13:18 1eimCc-0000EV-Nv <= david@alum U=david P=local S=1956 id=20180205191318.GC32350@alum

The id= given on this line is, of course, the invariant Message-ID
that procmail would use using to deduplicate incoming traffic.
(Just for the record.)

Cheers,
David.