From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ding-owner+M39883=ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.math.uh.edu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu (mx1.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.32])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BFD22173
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:44:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208])
	by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.98)
	(envelope-from <ding-owner+M39883=ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.math.uh.edu>)
	id 1szOMr-00000000kfG-0Xag
	for ml@inbox.vuxu.org;
	Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:44:17 -0500
Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu)
	by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.97.1)
	(envelope-from <ding-owner+M39883=ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.math.uh.edu>)
	id 1szOMp-00000005Lde-0Kus
	for ml@inbox.vuxu.org;
	Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:44:15 -0500
Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32])
	by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1)
	(envelope-from <gdt@lexort.com>)
	id 1szOMn-00000005LdY-32sg
	for ding@lists.math.uh.edu;
	Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:44:13 -0500
Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240])
	by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.98)
	(envelope-from <gdt@lexort.com>)
	id 1szOMm-00000000keo-29Jo
	for ding@lists.math.uh.edu;
	Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:44:13 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org;
	 s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:
	In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
	Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:
	Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
	bh=rPNMy7U9ODVJUWxvd/K48E6E28pR0tBOo0t7wQ39v1Q=; b=CvfFAIDBm0T/7ZkzLWw1KuJYW1
	BGUMyHhdiMj+N1e6atPvfLgGEOSUEX8aJarzK/gTrsToKeGf5Lx9qUSLVSqf1DBTFgCjaUTvyrQGc
	GpIO/60AjmSo9sDDbTZfQpIcJkExNX14mXnDfnNeGyEHWCi6/ad2BhSLnB5TTGi06D40=;
Received: from s1.lexort.com ([71.19.148.97])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <gdt@lexort.com>)
	id 1szOMf-0005D4-9c
	for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:44:08 +0200
Received: by s1.lexort.com (Postfix, from userid 10853)
	id 6F91F4106EA; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:44:02 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lexort.com; s=mail;
	t=1728686642; bh=0b4CohwJjPVwBuuHAmLz0YVFSAGNCN4Qz7i08oN5phw=;
	h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date;
	b=rrK6OoaN2qSToGfx70OjYjgEEnRkYsy2GXyUm13gtjLICznZ4+ZjIqoEITDcRqJyh
	 2KSe4E3F+Pl1aQTZXVlzft2mGlGFGMspOSV/WxhyQXR1D/l5NOwv4P11t4xi3SXMv5
	 iKmkozrdnK2Bhg+YHUda0mJp1gf4PcIfMYunMfgM=
From: Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com>
To: Divya Ranjan <divya@subvertising.org>
Cc: ding@gnus.org
Subject: Re: Agent and IMAP
In-Reply-To: <874j5is2i8.fsf@subvertising.org> (Divya Ranjan's message of
	"Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:23:11 +0000")
References: <874j5is2i8.fsf@subvertising.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
OpenPGP: id=098ED60E
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:44:02 -0400
Message-ID: <rmiikty1cr1.fsf@s1.lexort.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
List-ID: <ding.gnus.org>
Precedence: bulk

Divya Ranjan <divya@subvertising.org> writes:

> The documentation on Agent and IMAP configuration seems incomplete, is
> this because the implementation of it is incomplete in itself? I
> currently retrieve my mail on Gnus through nnimap, I have the method
> added to `gnus-agent-auto-agentize-methods`, but I dont
> think its working.

No clue about your query, but I wanted to point out that gmane use
causes spam filtering woes.  Your domain has a DMARC reject policy,
and the message as it arrived did not have a DKIM header from your
domain, nor was it from your domain's SPF record.

Spamassassin says

	*  1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy

and I can't say it's wrong.   I would say that it's not ok to use gmane
to messages whose From: domain has a DMARC policy (other than none).
Yes, that used to be normal...