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 | 14 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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 17:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AhCAp-3YD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223440 |
On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > 13 juin 2020 à 14:21 de andy@strugglers.net: > > > The mbox mail archive format is a single file containing all > > messages concatenated together. Separate messages are recognised by > > a line that starts: > > > > >From > you@example.com> ... > > > > As you can imagine if a message body contained such text it might > > prematurely end the emails and then the next email would be of an > > invalid format. > > > > As a result a lot of (mostly older) mail software escapes mail body > > lines that begin with "From" by putting a ">" in front, sometimes > > even when not in the context of archiving into an mbox. This is most > > likely what happened here. The use of ">" for this is just a very > > common convention. > > > Thanks, I was not aware of this. > However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, no? How would the viewer's email client know whether the > in >From had been added by some such scheme as above and should be removed, or was a genuine occurrence in the original email? > If I'm right, escaping "From" with a leading ">" is just for mailing software internals (mbox), the reverse process is applied when displaying the final message... Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-15 13:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AhVMK-71d-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223480 |
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:13:11AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > > However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, no? > > How would the viewer's email client know whether the > in > >From had been added by some such scheme as above and should > be removed, or was a genuine occurrence in the original email? Exactly. It's a non-reversible mangling of the message body, prompted by an extremely well-known limitation of the mbox formats. See <https://jdebp.eu/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html> for more details. In particular, we're talking about the <https://jdebp.eu/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html#mboxo> section. This same discussion seems to happen every month on this list, and it's still not clear to me WHY people can't understand it. It's not a new phenomenon. It's been this way forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-17 22:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AiMxH-5oU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223497 |
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:02:11AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > > See <https://jdebp.eu/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html> for more details. > I understand the phenomenon. I don't understand why modern software (eg > the list software) still does it. Well, imagine you're a mailing list. A dozen people are subscribing to you, and you have no way to know which MTA and mailbox formats each of your subscribers is using. If you don't do the From mangling, and you send a message to subscriber #7 who happens to be using a traditional /var/spool/mail mbox format, the results could be undesirable -- #7 will see half a message followed by a broken message. The easy fix is to perform From mangling on every message that passes through you. That way, people won't see massively broken messages. Occasionally, people will see a single broken line in a message, but 99% of the rest of your traffic will be OK. It's a conservative strategy, and it works... mostly. Close enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-17 23:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AiNk6-5EG-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223603 |
On 18/06/20 8:08 am, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:02:11AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: >> > See <https://jdebp.eu/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html> for more details. > >> I understand the phenomenon. I don't understand why modern software (eg >> the list software) still does it. > > Well, imagine you're a mailing list. A dozen people are subscribing > to you, and you have no way to know which MTA and mailbox formats each > of your subscribers is using. > > If you don't do the From mangling, and you send a message to > subscriber #7 who happens to be using a traditional /var/spool/mail > mbox format, the results could be undesirable -- #7 will see half a > message followed by a broken message. If subscriber #7 can't deal with lines with a leading From, then surely they're going to see breakage with any such incoming mail, not just those from the list. And so if needed, their own mail system (MTA or MUA) will mangle the From lines. How is a message from a list fundamentally different? It doesn't supply me with an mbox file, it still sends a properly formatted email. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-17 22:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AiMxI-5oU-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223497 |
On 15/06/20 11:44 pm, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:13:11AM -0500, David Wright wrote: >> On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: >> > However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, no? >> >> How would the viewer's email client know whether the > in >> >From had been added by some such scheme as above and should >> be removed, or was a genuine occurrence in the original email? > > Exactly. It's a non-reversible mangling of the message body, prompted by > an extremely well-known limitation of the mbox formats. > > See <https://jdebp.eu/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html> for more details. > In particular, we're talking about the > <https://jdebp.eu/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html#mboxo> section. > > This same discussion seems to happen every month on this list, and it's > still not clear to me WHY people can't understand it. It's not a new > phenomenon. It's been this way forever. > I understand the phenomenon. I don't understand why modern software (eg the list software) still does it. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | l0f4r0@tuta.io |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-15 14:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AhW65-7uD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223480 |
Hi, 13 juin 2020 à 21:14 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net: > You're looking at the wrong header. It's X-Spam-Status and > X-Amavis-Spam-Status you should worry about. Authetication-Results is > set by your MTA receiving your own mail from the list. > > But yes, they are both OK for this and your previous e-mails. > Ok, thanks but still confusing... > Which one of these is under your control btw, w3.tutanota.de or > w4.tutanota.de? > None, these are domains from my email provider. I don't own any email infrastructure myself... 14 juin 2020 à 17:13 de deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk: > On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > >> Thanks, I was not aware of this. >> However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, no? >> > How would the viewer's email client know whether the > in > >From had been added by some such scheme as above and should > be removed, or was a genuine occurrence in the original email? > If ">" was intentional, then it could have been escaped with an additional ">". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbox#Family: " >From my point of view... In the mboxo format, such lines have irreversible ambiguity. In the mboxo format, this can lead to corruption of the message. If a line already contained >From at the beginning (such as in a quotation), it is unchanged when written. When subsequently read by the mail software, the leading > is erroneously removed. The mboxrd format solves this by converting From to >From and converting >From to >>From , etc. The transformation is then always reversible." l0f4r0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-17 21:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <AiM4F-4ZR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223498 |
Hi. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 02:06:08PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > Hi, > > 13 juin 2020 à 21:14 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net: > > > You're looking at the wrong header. It's X-Spam-Status and > > X-Amavis-Spam-Status you should worry about. Authetication-Results is > > set by your MTA receiving your own mail from the list. > > > > But yes, they are both OK for this and your previous e-mails. > > > Ok, thanks but still confusing... Let's try it one more time. This particular phrase failed DKIM test in another thread. >From Linux kernel POV, *asynchronous* I/O is a pair of io_submit/io_getevents syscalls, and dd does not do these regardless of the options that are provided. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 21:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Ahkk9-1hO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223433 |
Andy Smith wrote: >On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:21:12PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: >> The mbox mail archive format is a single file containing all >> messages concatenated together. Separate messages are recognised by >> a line that starts: >> >> >From you@example.com ... > >Amusingly I didn't think to point out that by sending a line that >starts with that, Debian's list software will quote it! I should >probably have indented it with whitespace. Anyway, I didn't type the >">" there; Debian's list software inserted it. Nod. Smartlist is based on procmail, and that is keen on adding ">" to the beginning of lines starting with "From", even when it's *not* working on mbox-style folders. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline, Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 17:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Ahggx-7mw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223432 |
Hi. On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:21:12PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:08:14PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > > 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...). > > It was almost certainly done by Debian's mailing list software. It was definitely done by Debian's mailing list software. It looks like this: 1) bendel.debian.org (postfix) receives the e-mail in question from w4.tutanota.de. 2) bendel (postfix) feeds incoming e-mail to bendel (amavisd), which reports that DKIM is OK: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, ... DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1 ... 3) bendel (amavisd) tosses e-mail back to bendel (postfix), which tosses it in turn to bendel (spamassassin). 4) The latter reports that DKIM test failed: X-Spam-Status: No, ... tests=DIGITS_LETTERS,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED 5) bendel (spamassassin) tosses the e-mail to bendel (postfix) again, the latter does the delivery. DKIM test fails again: 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" Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Ah8VH-2XW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223397 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Vi, 12 iun 20, 22:45:13, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > 12 juin 2020 à 22:32 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net: > > > 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. You could be using any provider to *post* to mailing lists with public archives. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | l0f4r0@tuta.io |
|---|---|
| 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 | <AgYD0-5cO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223380 |
Hi, 12 juin 2020 à 22:16 de mstone@debian.org: > 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. > It's a nice explanation BUT why most of my emails are ok then on the ML? NB: no need to send me other specimen for the time being, many thanks :) Best regards, l0f4r0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 10:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Ah9f4-34t-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223395 |
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 07:52:55AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From" > quoted with a ">". > > Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM. 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). So I would not expect the DKIM situation to change any time soon with regard to Debian mailing lists. It is one of the reasons why I support moving to Discourse for use cases such as this list. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Aheop-6g8-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223415 |
On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 07:56 +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 07:52:55AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > > Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From" > > quoted with a ">". > > > > Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM. > > 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). > > So I would not expect the DKIM situation to change any time soon with > regard to Debian mailing lists. DKIM and Mailinglists has never changed, it's never been advised to mix the two, and it won't be. What you should be aspiring for is ARC. -Jim P.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-13 10:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list) |
| Message-ID | <Ah9f4-34t-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #223395 |
Hi, On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:30:44PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: > 12 juin 2020 à 22:16 de mstone@debian.org: > > 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. > > > It's a nice explanation BUT why most of my emails are ok then on the ML? Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From" quoted with a ">". Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web