From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCD8138AE9 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FF61E0E4F; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from very.loosely.org (very.loosely.org [173.255.215.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13187E0DFF for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.78.6] (port=50506 helo=matica.foolinux.mooo.com) by ahiker.mooo.com with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eJ10k-00089N-GH for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:46:34 -0800 Received: from itz by matica.foolinux.mooo.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eJ10b-0001Bh-P9 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:46:25 -0800 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:46:25 -0800 From: Ian Zimmerman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Setting up fetchmail to feed postfix Message-ID: <20171126174625.bnb3iouc6xwj4uti@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <2105357.N7kWRluRGt@peak> <1710336.gcbUEJiXxu@thetick> <6e54e7a0-7a5a-f7d4-0ae1-04f97ef6d040@gmail.com> <1722168.phgiPb26BP@peak> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Loosely-Listed: yes User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170707-dirty (1.8.3) X-Archives-Salt: c7a0f09f-1b16-4607-a14e-530dee9fcc3a X-Archives-Hash: c7686bc9742df4c081dfb79f0ae85aa8 On 2017-11-26 11:00, Ralph Seichter wrote: > Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) > by smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) > (Exim 4.80) > (envelope-from ) > id 1eImhw-0000IJ-SK > for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 02:30:12 +0000 > > Message #2: > > Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) > by smarthost03a.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) > (Exim 4.80) > (envelope-from ) > id 1eImhw-0002XH-8v > for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 02:30:12 +0000 > > Note the different host names and different IDs, these are two distinct > emails sent by you. No, those are Exim's local IDs, assigned by the list server host. Those are distinct from RFc 5322 Message-IDs, which are the closest thing to uniquely identify a message. So from the above it cannot be concluded that Peter's system sent the message twice: it might have, but it might equally have been the fault of the list server. FWIW, I am _not_ seeing any duplicates on this list, but I am currently struggling with dupes on another one: http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain.