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 developed!

I suppose, it is much easier, to remove a package, than to fix it. Once removed, it will soon be forgotten.

This is not mourning, please note, just things, I am just reflect my
watchings.

And for libreoffice I suppose, it is planned, to change from 7.6 to 24.4,
which will be a major jump.

Don't anger, if I do not find the correct Englisg idioms!

Best

Hans

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi, Hans

is it your mail setup adding that *****SPAM***** decoration to the
subject?

Just curious...

cheers
--
t

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCZiDtnAAKCRAFyCz1etHa RiF7AJ0bmG21naKaxprdXhnsq78IX9hFHACeLlkKMoMcHS0drjzChM3KCnWn0MU=
=C/bK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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, many years of coding passed by.

And webmin and usermin are still developed!

I suspect that your text above has come out sounding more entitled
than you intended, as English is not your first language.

Just bear in mind that you are/were expecting volunteers to do free
work for you in packaging this software for Debian. If they no
longer see the value in doing so, that is their concern and their
concern alone. If they never took any interest in it again, that
also is solely their own concern.

Every single package in Debian relies upon there being maintainers
who are interested in packaging it for Debian. We all live in
constant hope that our favoured packages are still worth packaging.

As you say, you are fortunate enough to still have a project that
has active upstream developers so it is still your option to either
install this software from upstream yourself, or pay them to do the
packaging work that you used to get for free.

Thanks,
Andy

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 11:53:38 CEST schrieb [email protected]:
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 and debian admins will also not do, and I just answered to the debian mail, you see the spam mark in the headline.

I am no motre thinking of it, because everything was said in another theread
in this list.

For myself I made a rule in spamassassin, that mails from debian are whitelisted, although they are marked as spam and although they are appearing with ****SPA**** in the headline - as I know, they are NO spam!

Hope, this explains it.

Best

Hans

Hi, Hans

is it your mail setup adding that *****SPAM***** decoration to the
subject?

Just curious...

cheers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 17:08:53 CEST schrieb Hans:
Sorry, the spam tag appears because of DCIM in the header.

Not my fault.

Best

Hans

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 11:53:38 CEST schrieb [email protected]:
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 and debian admins will also not do, and I just answered to the debian mail, you see the spam mark in the headline.

I am no motre thinking of it, because everything was said in another theread in this list.

For myself I made a rule in spamassassin, that mails from debian are whitelisted, although they are marked as spam and although they are
appearing with ****SPA**** in the headline - as I know, they are NO spam!

Hope, this explains it.

Best

Hans

Hi, Hans

is it your mail setup adding that *****SPAM***** decoration to the
subject?

Just curious...

cheers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message leaves his control.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicolas George" <[email protected]>
To: "debian-user" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:13:44 AM
Subject: Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]

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
--
Bob Netzlof a/k/a Sweet Old Bob

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
On 2024-04-18 at 11:15, Hans wrote:

Sorry, the spam tag appears because of DCIM in the header.

Not my fault.

But it did not appear on *this* message from you to the list.

Is there a reason you couldn't edit the Subject: lines of the replies
you're sending, before you send them, to remove the marker?

If the marker were being added to the replies after you send them (which
would be an odd behavior, since presumably the reason it's being added
is that the mail servers think there's something odd about the mail when
it's incoming, and there isn't anything odd about the mail you're
*sending* except where it's addressed to), then an edit like that
wouldn't do anything.

But if it were being added after you send the mail, presumably it would
have been added to this "Sorry" message as well - and it wasn't, even
though that mail too is a reply to an E-mail you received through the
list, and is addressed to the list.

It would therefore seem as if editing out the "*****SPAM*****" marker
from your replies before you send them would result in the replies
showing up on the mailing list without that marker.

--
The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmYhO+oACgkQBKk1jTQo Mmu4kA/+PjK8GiKdEQWQvKlcnpreeEk8guhXKDXTV3dS5cSDbP4AukF4/8+kdFMp xDKvYEnXruEwQVHEL69JV+fHmBrIOuFDLRGiq67eeM+Phjrr6C+a1hQ9DCW9vHMe lQFfs7Tw0TeqUhZ+WtnfgVdXqvM7mqMTwpV/gcsDKxGwJ5NK2P04mJ87I2wQ7btS xpkB0XXDOCm2RYRnGX7g2/+yzn5ZkNEJBTRQTVDWmdJ2FT9nwdK2eWyNei0Q2ZP1 7o7ohVMJCkhpuW0Uq5xoq8aPvxpGKMdm+fn7MGBY/JqxcywpypxKzmaduqK6pDGL FmtYmZrFVkY48SstmxMxMCiXFUOdrngazTBqS3ltdEoyPFNvUySzdmI6J+5RhFoC 92qXHfZpbEq2FJeoXGoxMLglNaqEo1DLwQMApS7mXnFQuCP8Kp0jdJMUawt7IuEd vV5oELRMNKSEDngJCSaXyUxNbkW72i5Wkn/gESCpoiOz/pDKjbGuNvKAkaLwixQA 1wVySlV6uzZzyH28UhdzO4WmpCA7D+ynqghOEr8Atn4+Sm86iC2aaKsAiBkgO3jT QE7SDsJiKlrLgB2Xn79cZKh9pUKMCfoL6hAQD8OEiNOGdzBOzc8h+0U8s/tkVNeR QknxXQ3LW7qpLpoOZUUwS4EEtcHV

[email protected] (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.debian.org/debian-user/2024/04/msg00294.html

Regards,

--
Nicolas George

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2024, 17:21:41 CEST schrieb [email protected]: 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 the header (created by the debian servers) and megamailservers.eu add the ****SPAM**** tag.

Those, who receive their mails on another way, are not affected, but I am.

Thus, I get some mails from the debian list with ****SPAM**** tag and some without, depending how I received it.

I can not fix this (as already described in another thread on this list here), so I had to create a whitelist rule in my spamrules.

However, yes, you can expect from me, that I remove the ****SPAM**** tag, when I reply of mails.

If I reply, I am not sure, if the spam tag is recreated, whilst the DCIM=false tag might be kept in the reply mails (did not examine this).

Of course, I will watch to remove the spam tag when replying in the future.

Promised!

Best

Hans

As I understand what he wrote, the SPAM tag is added after the message
leaves his control.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicolas George" <[email protected]>
To: "debian-user" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:13:44 AM
Subject: Re: *****SPAM***** Marking as spam [was: *****SPAM***** Re: LibreOffice removed from Debian]
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 shitty mail service, because failed DKIM (I
assume that's what you mean by DCIM=false) does not mean that an email
is a spam.

Conversely, I see a lot of spams that have a valid DKIM signature.

Moreover, I don't think the Debian list servers validate DKIM. It's
probably your host that is doing so.

And finally, your own mails fail DKIM, so for a mail server that seems
to give so much importance to DKIM, they could at least set it up right.

--
Nothing can be done in one trip.
-- Snider

Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
[email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
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 servers) and megamailservers.eu add
the ****SPAM**** tag.

Or you could use a less shitty mail service, because failed DKIM (I
assume that's what you mean by DCIM=false) does not mean that an
email is a spam.

Good luck convincing a provider which has decided to do this of that.

Conversely, I see a lot of spams that have a valid DKIM signature.

Moreover, I don't think the Debian list servers validate DKIM. It's
probably your host that is doing so.

And finally, your own mails fail DKIM, so for a mail server that
seems to give so much importance to DKIM, they could at least set it
up right.

My understanding, based I think in part on past conversations, was/is
that changes which are often made to messages automatically by
mailing-list software as part of forwarding them through to the list
members have the side effect of causing DKIM checks to fail (at least
with some DKIM-validating configurations, I'm not sure about all).

If that is correct, then not only would that likely be the reason for
Hans' mail provider seeing DKIM validation failing for all mails from debian-user, it would also mean that mails from Hans would probably fail
DKIM validation for those who receive them through debian-user - without meaning that his mail provider is necessarily doing DKIM wrong, at least
on the sending end.

A way to check that might be to have Hans send a mail to someone both
via the list and not, or (if that gets filtered out by some relevant
software as being a duplicate) send two mails, one via the list and the
other not. If the one via the list has the header flag for failed DKIM,
and the other doesn't, that would seem to narrow down the possibilities.

(I am not volunteering for this.)


On the other hand, if my understanding is *not* correct, then none of
that applies.

--
The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmYhT90ACgkQBKk1jTQo Mms8/g/9ETiMjLiWjvalVlMQngDcl6+uVpuIEpsIYVt8SePt/1ovy45D+LCy7gGF UYdKAfR5nO/PZA/KWEponMPIqbaji6UizMSTrmctPzJx47/TCfWwjG/tDsBKjlpF CZJDo0XY9gpJpw4do9//8fSw2fNs2Zzb0us+ztTTK6HGAVk/SU9BA+kHn++2DNE3 nAU7c7Y13xV+I/nQTyyE8vrJRpvRYSIjSm9mw7QcOn69+ly4WHz/Hm0J0++rBS+y Xz/MlSE1BKHA4Q2STplcICVSUagtiViHTL51DqVun252em5NQ9vvQu3YOIvf7ie6 zbutqSiOm5IJSJF5+EHeVyGgw79Yg/XqjokdIUTdv79wVEMQfQWXr4LmywoU+fhH TtPRTi4DpBI5fmePpKjNyYsgbi8gtkh5OY7Ve2VQcO8Eyixi5znSiWrOT0Mq0+Bu T/ojFHa6pNltyPJ9iqoIq1gB1x9jLSG+xsjuEjROkr1OanXAYfubOPrOcw/XjbPg FpAt0eUuV7Ml8KzJu9UmnhjPhUrLdyXQhEuNC8hiGL6gAFpexvZnge5/3EN7nLQJ ZqBW4SfTx26yPNNMNwiNE2wIfv9T1k+LZs7mblAKagD394qFMZVKmR2wSLmT26mY wa/FcuTp6LitYo45a6lqZQd9qw+E