On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > 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, > > > > > > > That address is not subscribed to the list and plays no part in routeing > > > mails to or from the list. > > > > Yet e-mails with that address at From: do have X-Spam-Status: > > LDOSUBSCRIBER. > > Whenever list e-mail is delivered at another e-mail is hardly relevant. > > > > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have > > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about. > > Dead easy. Just configure your email system so that the envelope-from > does not match your subscribed address. All my list postings lacked > LDOSUBSCRIBER until April last year for that reason. Judging by one > of the threads I contributed to at that time, I expect that this is > when I changed my domain's name from nothing to "corp", and stopped > exim from nagging me about my FQDN.
Ok, that can work, I appreciate the explanation. Now, the hard part. Show me a way *not* to have LDOSUBSCRIBER, and have both Return-Path and From to be the same *and* to be subscribed to the list. Bonus point is awarded for From to be from @gmail.com, another one if e-mail is sent by Google MTA, with the valid DKIM. Previous sentences refer to OP's e-mail, just in case. Reco