Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #223167 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-07 19:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-06-13 10:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 74 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 19:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-07 19:40 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 19:50 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2020-06-07 19:40 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 20:00 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-07 21:40 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 22:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-06-07 22:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 22:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-08 00:10 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 20:00 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-06-07 20:10 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 20:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-07 20:50 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 21:20 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-07 21:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-07 22:10 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-07 23:00 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-11 23:20 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-12 00:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-08 00:10 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2020-06-08 00:50 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Geoff Reidy <geoff.reidy@gmail.com> - 2020-06-08 02:50 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-08 08:30 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-06-08 15:10 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-11 23:20 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list A_Man_Without_Clue <love.chaser@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 03:40 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-12 10:40 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Admin4 <admin4@dwaves.de> - 2020-06-12 10:50 +0200
Re: why !oh why Debian and application list Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> - 2020-06-14 02:00 +0200
[OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-12 15:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-06-12 16:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-06-12 18:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-06-12 22:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 22:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-06-12 22:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-12 22:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 23:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2020-06-12 23:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-13 14:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-06-13 14:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-06-13 14:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-13 15:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-06-13 15:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-13 15:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-06-13 16:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-13 16:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 17:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 17:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 21:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-16 13:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-16 15:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-16 21:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-16 21:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 04:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-06-16 16:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-13 21:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-13 21:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 21:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-13 16:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-06-14 17:20 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-15 13:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-17 22:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2020-06-17 23:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2020-06-17 22:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-15 14:10 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-17 21:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2020-06-13 21:50 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 17:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 09:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) l0f4r0@tuta.io - 2020-06-12 22:40 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-06-13 10:00 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> - 2020-06-13 15:30 +0200
Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-06-13 10:00 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-08 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AfbEm-4ZU-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223176 |
Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: > > suppose. But really, it's a basic user experience need, not like trying > to set up a server or virtual machine kind of project. :) Those are also user experience needs. The essence of Linux is that at any time, an ordinary user should be able to put on their sysadmin hat or their programming hat and be able to inspect, change, create and fix their software. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-08 00:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Afch3-5cO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223176 |
On Sun, 07 Jun, 2020 at 20:19:48 +0200, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: > On 6/7/20 7:52 PM, Peter Ehlert wrote: [...] > What window manager/desktop suite are you using? > > GNOME Metacity That's unusual these days. Are you getting your application menu from gnome-panel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff Reidy <geoff.reidy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-08 02:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Afe9b-6kK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223167 |
Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: > Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind > how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu. > > The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century. > > I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, > where logic would suggest it be. > > I had to dial it up from the command line. > > I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian. > > Thanks a lot. > > I just hit the "windows" key and started typing, by the time I got to "pica" it was the only choice in the list, hit enter and up it comes. This is on KDE/Plasma. Regards, Geoff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-08 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Afjse-1fa-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223167 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Du, 07 iun 20, 19:23:24, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: > Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind > how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu. > > The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century. > > I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, > where logic would suggest it be. > > I had to dial it up from the command line. > > I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian. Debian does very little customization of the various Desktop Environments, you are experiencing upstream's take on usability. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-08 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AfpHk-51t-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223231 |
On 6/7/20 11:20 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 07 iun 20, 19:23:24, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: >> Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind >> how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu. >> >> The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century. >> >> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, >> where logic would suggest it be. >> >> I had to dial it up from the command line. >> >> I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian. > Debian does very little customization of the various Desktop > Environments, you are experiencing upstream's take on usability. My personal perception/observation: the individuals that bundle the DEs configure them differently. some are "pimped out", some are spartan, by design. for example, the Mate DE is very spartan... a bit of effort is needed to make it My Way. this is Good. less cruft, and much better for the low resource machines. > > Kind regards, > Andrei
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-11 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AgCMa-iu-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223231 |
On 6/8/20 8:20 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Debian does very little customization of the various Desktop > Environments, you are experiencing upstream's take on usability. > > Kind regards, > Andrei Thanks a lot, Andrei, this is very, very helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | A_Man_Without_Clue <love.chaser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AgGPL-2Fz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223167 |
On 6/8/20 2:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: > Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind > how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu. > > The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century. > > I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, > where logic would suggest it be. > > I had to dial it up from the command line. > > I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian. > > Thanks a lot. > Mine appears under "Sound & Video" I'm using LXDE Debian Buster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AgNod-6MX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223362 |
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:36:20 +0900 A_Man_Without_Clue <love.chaser@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/8/20 2:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: > > Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic > > behind how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications > > menu. > > > > The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester > > century. > > > > I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, > > where logic would suggest it be. > > > > I had to dial it up from the command line. > > > > I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with > > Debian. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > Mine appears under "Sound & Video" > > I'm using LXDE Debian Buster. > 'Multimedia', Xfce/xfwm4 on stretch and sid. I believe this is the standard freedesktop menu. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Admin4 <admin4@dwaves.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <AgNxT-6QL-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223366 |
have you tried Alt+F2 (brings up a search menu X-D) On 6/12/20 10:31 AM, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:36:20 +0900 > A_Man_Without_Clue <love.chaser@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/8/20 2:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: >>> Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic >>> behind how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications >>> menu. >>> >>> The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester >>> century. >>> >>> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, >>> where logic would suggest it be. >>> >>> I had to dial it up from the command line. >>> >>> I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with >>> Debian. >>> >>> Thanks a lot. >>> >> >> Mine appears under "Sound & Video" >> >> I'm using LXDE Debian Buster. >> > 'Multimedia', Xfce/xfwm4 on stretch and sid. I believe this is the > standard freedesktop menu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seeds Notoneofmy <notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Ahoe5-3zL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223362 |
On 6/12/20 3:36 AM, A_Man_Without_Clue wrote: > Mine appears under "Sound & Video" > > I'm using LXDE Debian Buster. Thanks a lot. That's where I just found mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | l0f4r0@tuta.io |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 15:50 +0200 |
| Subject | [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgSee-1iy-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223167 |
Hi, My email below got a DKIM issue. This is not the first time for me on this ML so I'm trying to debug the situation with my email provider. Does someone on this list mind forwarding to me (as an attachment please, not inline) his/her own specimen of my original email below please? I need headers+body, this will help the investigations. NB: Please ignore this message if you are a Tutanota subscriber. Thank you in advance & Best regards :) l0f4r0 7 Jun 2020 19:37 from l0f4r0@tuta.io: > Hi, > > 7 juin 2020 à 19:23 de notoneofmyseeds@gmx.de: > >> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video, >> where logic would suggest it be. >> > >From my side, Picard appears under Multimedia>MusicBrainz Picard. > Here is the related desktop file (org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop): > > [Desktop Entry] > Name=MusicBrainz Picard > Comment=Tag your music with the next generation MusicBrainz tagger > Exec=picard %F > Terminal=false > Type=Application > StartupNotify=true > StartupWMClass=MusicBrainz-Picard > Icon=org.musicbrainz.Picard > Categories=AudioVideo;Audio;AudioVideoEditing; > MimeType=audio/x-mp3;audio/ogg;audio/mpeg;application/ogg;audio/x-flac;audio/x-flac+ogg;audio/x-vorbis+ogg;audio/x-speex+ogg;audio/x-oggflac;audio/x-musepack;audio/x-tta;audio/x-ms-wma;audio/x-wavpack; > > Best regards, > l0f4r0 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 16:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgSnT-1lT-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223371 |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: >My email below got a DKIM issue. It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 18:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgUSK-2XS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223374 |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote:
>>My email below got a DKIM issue.
>
>It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.
For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail DKIM
validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from
DKIM_VALID to DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on
bendel.) On my system that one says that it fails dkim because the body
was altered. Looking at the body my best guess would be that it's a
normalization/line length issue on the part of the dkim signer, but
without the original message that's just a guess.
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 645DA20490; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Sun Jun 7 17:38:07 2020
Old-Return-Path: <l0f4r0@tuta.io>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.9 required=4.0 tests=DIGITS_LETTERS,DKIM_INVALID,
DKIM_SIGNED,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
version=3.4.2
X-Original-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D0220487
for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.201 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DIGITS_LETTERS=1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id E4EkTvek1ETa for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>;
Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:37:55 +0000 (UTC)
...
Message-ID: <M9Er2Er--3-2@tuta.io>
...
Resent-Message-ID: <hKLHkctiec.A.Ma._XS3eB@bendel>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 22:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgYjE-56p-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223380 |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:36:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >>On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: >>>My email below got a DKIM issue. >> >>It validated fine here, not a debian list issue. > >For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail >DKIM validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from >DKIM_VALID to DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on >bendel.) On my system that one says that it fails dkim because the >body was altered. Looking at the body my best guess would be that it's >a normalization/line length issue on the part of the dkim signer, but >without the original message that's just a guess. More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list was base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software autoconverted that to plain text--which would mean there's no way to preserve a valid DKIM signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 22:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgYCZ-5cO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223393 |
Hi. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:16:23PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:36:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > > > > My email below got a DKIM issue. > > > > > > It validated fine here, not a debian list issue. > > > > For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail DKIM validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from DKIM_VALID to > > DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on bendel.) On my system that one says that it fails dkim because the body was altered. Looking at > > the body my best guess would be that it's a normalization/line length issue on the part of the dkim signer, but without the original message that's just a > > guess. > > More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list was base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software autoconverted that to > plain text--which would mean there's no way to preserve a valid DKIM signature. There might be a way. Current OP DKIM policy is (I have no idea why certain headers are listed twice): DKIM-Signature: ... h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes. Of course, refraining from sending html e-mails here would be easier solution ;) I'd like to see a headers of this problematic e-mail too. Can you post them please? Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 22:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgYMF-5g7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223394 |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:32:20PM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > >On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:16:23PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:36:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: >> > > > My email below got a DKIM issue. >> > > >> > > It validated fine here, not a debian list issue. >> > >> > For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail DKIM validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from DKIM_VALID to >> > DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on bendel.) On my system that one says that it fails dkim because the body was altered. Looking at >> > the body my best guess would be that it's a normalization/line length issue on the part of the dkim signer, but without the original message that's just a >> > guess. >> >> More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list was base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software autoconverted that to >> plain text--which would mean there's no way to preserve a valid DKIM signature. > >There might be a way. Current OP DKIM policy is (I have no idea why >certain headers are listed twice): > >DKIM-Signature: ... h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; > >Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's >DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable >side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes. No, the mail should fail because the body has literally changed (all the html tags are gone).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | l0f4r0@tuta.io |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 22:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgYMF-5g7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223394 |
Hi Reco, 12 juin 2020 à 22:32 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net: > Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's > DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable > side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes. > Thanks, I will submit this lead to my email provider. > Of course, > refraining from sending html e-mails here would be easier solution ;) > I'd like nothing better but it seems this is not possible currently on Tutanota web app. > I'd like to see a headers of this problematic e-mail too. Can you post > them please? > I'm not sure to understand your request. The only headers I have are those from incoming emails. As a ML subscriber you have access to the headers like me, don't you? Or maybe you are speaking about the original body? Best regards, l0f4r0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 23:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgYWl-5kc-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223397 |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:45:13PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > Hi Reco, > > 12 juin 2020 à 22:32 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net: > > > Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's > > DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable > > side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes. > > > Thanks, I will submit this lead to my email provider. As Michael Stone helpfully pointed - it might not be enough. > > I'd like to see a headers of this problematic e-mail too. Can you post > > them please? > > > I'm not sure to understand your request. > The only headers I have are those from incoming emails. As a ML subscriber you have access to the headers like me, don't you? Yes, but I just cannot find that particular e-mail of yours with Message-Id: <M9Er2Er--3-2@tuta.io>. And the search via Web interface finds nothing. > Or maybe you are speaking about the original body? No, the body is not interesting at all here. What I'm interested in is the result of DKIM check, and that's might be written in e-mail headers. Or not. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 23:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AgZfH-5Gc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223398 |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:53:40PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>No, the body is not interesting at all here.
>What I'm interested in is the result of DKIM check, and that's might be
>written in e-mail headers. Or not.
dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)"
header.d=tuta.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | l0f4r0@tuta.io |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 14:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Ahd8Z-5BI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223398 |
Hi, 12 juin 2020 à 22:53 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net: > Yes, but I just cannot find that particular e-mail of yours with > Message-Id: <> M9Er2Er--3-2@tuta.io> >. > I didn't understand where you got the ID then? ^^ > And the search via Web interface finds nothing. > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00215.html 12 juin 2020 à 23:16 de mstone@debian.org: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:53:40PM +0300, Reco wrote: > >> No, the body is not interesting at all here. >> What I'm interested in is the result of DKIM check, and that's might be >> written in e-mail headers. Or not. >> > dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=tuta.io > Thanks Michael. The "reason" is stated a little bit differently from my side but it boils down to the same thing. Here are the full headers as requested by Reco: Authentication-Results: w3.tutanota.de (dis=spam; info=dmarc domain policy); dmarc=fail (dis=spam p=quarantine; aspf=r; adkim=s; pSrc=dns) header.from=tuta.io; dkim=fail reason="body hash does not match" header.d=tuta.io header.s=s1 header.b=FCKFHXRgReceived: from w4.tutanota.de ([192.168.1.165]) by w3.tutanota.de with SMTP (SubEthaSMTP 3.1.7) id KB5CNTA9 for l0f4r0@tuta.io; Sun, 07 Jun 2020 19:38:11 +0200 (CEST)Received-SPF: None (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=82.195.75.100; helo=bendel.debian.org; envelope-from=bounce-debian-user=l0f4r0=tuta.io@lists.debian.org; receiver=<UNKNOWN> Received: from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E710910602CF for <l0f4r0@tuta.io>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:11 +0000 (UTC)Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 645DA20490; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:07 +0000 (UTC)X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Sun Jun 7 17:38:07 2020Old-Return-Path: <l0f4r0@tuta.io>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on bendel.debian.orgX-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.9 required=4.0 tests=DIGITS_LETTERS,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2X-Original-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org Delivered-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D0220487 for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:00 +0000 (UTC)X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-htX-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.201 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DIGITS_LETTERS=1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=noReceived: from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525) with ESMTP id E4EkTvek1ETa for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:37:55 +0000 (UTC)X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -4.6Received: from w4.tutanota.de (w4.tutanota.de [81.3.6.165]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "tutanota.com", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE09620485 for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:37:55 +0000 (UTC)Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E763E1060254 for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:37:52 +0000 (UTC)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1591551472; s=s1; d=tuta.io; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=s0Y3rXEVXjnN/M6XYAtvSYoqbqPfl8XS3uJxBmHyC0Q=; b=FCKFHXRgAWn5LR7h0/3d6Xxik44GKm3SLLgp0YhDEVrIFOC6xrJZYVh7ccv1UQGf 6QtvLewAWCYnk1VUntaSnEXprLS2Eh9uQnCN7XVbiMA5oguf6QQ4lohnRviwtTt3x3K NFThvwzmLuHereSCAeBoWoaNLqqZltQsUdg6tS5ubUphw0jvwHywxQT6X2floh9rFko kBqkQZD1nFfAgLtVuwIYm+PSv6+2FA51nufGuk5LOm3RAYUzk5J2S6mqKm0z2Dulc5i XAvanOIePofjpXG/ARkuqgbd306GVKL6chiqfbVl/5ZMIS5PDEshxufAxi9/MLIwoxp cNeZzZT14A==Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 19:37:52 +0200 (CEST)From: l0f4r0@tuta.io To: Debian User <debian-user@lists.debian.org>Message-ID: <M9Er2Er--3-2@tuta.io>In-Reply-To: <dfce1b61-8439-4c29-4d8b-1dec467fe7a2@gmx.de>References: <dfce1b61-8439-4c29-4d8b-1dec467fe7a2@gmx.de>Subject: Re: why !oh why Debian and application listMIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableX-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01Resent-Message-ID: <hKLHkctiec.A.Ma._XS3eB@bendel>Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/763444X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>List-URL: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/>List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>Precedence: listResent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/M9Er2Er--3-2@tuta.io Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:07 +0000 (UTC) 13 juin 2020 à 09:52 de andy@strugglers.net: > Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From" > quoted with a ">". > Indeed! I hope it's not a mistake of mine (usually I proofread my emails before sending them but who knows...). > Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM. > Why would they do that? ">" is rather usually indicated to insert quotations isn't it? 13 juin 2020 à 09:56 de andy@strugglers.net: > I will add that I recall that Debian postmasters have been asked > before about making changes to accommodate receiving sites that are > strict about DKIM, and they explicitly declined to do so. I think > that was more in the context of rewriting the mail's From header > though (not preventing body changes as is the case here). > Thanks for the feedback. If it's Debian ML responsibility, better to know it because my email provider won't be able to do anything about fixing the issue. l0f4r0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web