From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19792 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2017 16:31:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 40888 Received: (qmail 28992 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2017 16:31:34 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from pug.qqx.org by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(50.116.43.67):SA:0(-0.0/5.0):. Processed in 1.88284 secs); 23 Mar 2017 16:31:34 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: aaron@schrab.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at schrab.com designates 50.116.43.67 as permitted sender) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:23:19 -0400 From: Aaron Schrab To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Duplicate messages (was Re: LINENO behaviour in sh mode) Message-ID: <20170323162319.GJ28115@pug.qqx.org> Mail-Followup-To: Bart Schaefer , zsh-workers@zsh.org References: <170322194527.ZM5658@torch.brasslantern.com> <29695ed3-9436-b066-311a-bec4e237b6fd@inlv.org> <170323091142.ZM8335@torch.brasslantern.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <170323091142.ZM8335@torch.brasslantern.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8+40 (g7da14e4e) (2017-02-23) At 09:11 -0700 23 Mar 2017, Bart Schaefer wrote: >} (BTW, Bart, all your messages have been coming through zwh-workers in >} duplicate for quite some time now, the second copy always about 2K >} larger than the first due to extra routing headers.) > >Thanks for letting me know; that means at least some of gmail's SMTP >relays are off the blocklist used by primenet. Based on what I'd seen that was always the case. I started seeing dups pretty much as soon as that work around was put into place. I'd though that was expected, so I just enabled duplicate filtering on my end. >(do both copies of >what you see have the same X-Seq ?) No, each copy has its own X-Seq. (I keep copies of all incoming mail before any filtering is done.) >I'll try this one without the second copy and see what happens. It obviously made it to the list.