Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #270802 > unrolled thread

This is a testmail!

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  This is a testmail! Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 13:20 +0200
    Re: This is a testmail! The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-04 13:30 +0200
      Re: This is a testmail! Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 14:00 +0200
        [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail! Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 14:10 +0200
    Re: This is a testmail! CToID <funk443@yahoo.com.tw> - 2024-07-04 13:50 +0200
    Re: This is a testmail! Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-07-04 14:10 +0200
      Re: This is a testmail! Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-07-04 14:30 +0200
      Re: This is a testmail! Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 14:30 +0200
        Re: This is a testmail! Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> - 2024-07-04 19:20 +0200
          Re: This is a testmail! The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-04 21:00 +0200
            Re: This is a testmail! Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 21:30 +0200
              Re: This is a testmail! The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-04 21:40 +0200
                Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 22:10 +0200
                  Re: Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-04 22:20 +0200
                    Re: Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-04 22:20 +0200
                      Re: Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-07-04 22:30 +0200
        Re: This is a testmail! Detlef Vollmann <dv@vollmann.ch> - 2024-07-04 23:00 +0200
          Re: This is a testmail! Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 23:20 +0200
          Re: This is a testmail! Jeff Pang <jeff@simplemail.co.in> - 2024-07-05 00:30 +0200

#270802 — This is a testmail!

Hi folks,

this is a testmail, because I got some trouble with the mailingist. As 
reported before, I get all ,mails from debian-user@lists.debian.org with 
tagged with *****SPAM**** added to the subject. This is because of some DKIM 
failure, as reported before. As I could fix this by setting a special rule for 
this mailaddresse in spamassassin, I know dicovered another issue.

When I am sending a mail to the list, it looks like the subject is completely 
replaced with only "*****SPAM*****".

I would like to know, when this happens. Either during the transfer from me to 
the debian server, or when it is sent from the debian server to me.

This mail has the subject "This is a testmail!".

It would be nice, if someone could tell me, if this mail is tagged with 
"****SPAM****" somewhere and if the subject is removed or not.

This behaviour appeared suddenly several months ago and I do not know, what, 
might have changed since then.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards

Hans

 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#270803

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-07-04 at 07:14, Hans wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> this is a testmail, because I got some trouble with the mailingist.
> As reported before, I get all ,mails from
> debian-user@lists.debian.org with tagged with *****SPAM**** added to
> the subject. This is because of some DKIM failure, as reported
> before. As I could fix this by setting a special rule for this
> mailaddresse in spamassassin, I know dicovered another issue.
> 
> When I am sending a mail to the list, it looks like the subject is
> completely replaced with only "*****SPAM*****".

I have not noticed this, but I'll admit that I have not been reading
every thread, so it's possible it might have been in the depths of a
thread which I was not reading.

> I would like to know, when this happens. Either during the transfer
> from me to the debian server, or when it is sent from the debian
> server to me.
> 
> This mail has the subject "This is a testmail!".
> 
> It would be nice, if someone could tell me, if this mail is tagged
> with "****SPAM****" somewhere

It does not appear to be, unless these occurrences of that string in the
*body* of the message count.

> and if the subject is removed or not.

It was not. I have not, that I'm aware of, seen that happen.


Also, looking at the message headers, I see what appear to be multiple
indications that DKIM validation passed.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270806

Hmm, this is strange. Maybe I wrote my testmail from scratch.

This one is a reply as it have been, when the issue appeared.

Strangely my own testmail appeared without the SPAM tag this time.

Maybe there is a difference, if I am using a reply mail. 

I will watch this and search for more information.

Hope, not everyone is replying now, only one feedback is enough.

Thanks for help though.

Best

Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270807 — [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!

Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 13:58:07 CEST schrieb Hans:
Answering myself: 

At the moment everything is looking fine.

Maybe after the big issue yesterday, the mail admins somewhere in the world 
have fixed the problem? Dunno. Whatever, strange..... 

I will watch this in the future.

Let's close this issue for now, so that this list is not too much filled with 
unusefull spam.   

However, if this issue appears again, I will allow myself to ask again for 
help.

Thank you all for your quick response!

Best regards

Hans



> Hmm, this is strange. Maybe I wrote my testmail from scratch.
> 
> This one is a reply as it have been, when the issue appeared.
> 
> Strangely my own testmail appeared without the SPAM tag this time.
> 
> Maybe there is a difference, if I am using a reply mail.
> 
> I will watch this and search for more information.
> 
> Hope, not everyone is replying now, only one feedback is enough.
> 
> Thanks for help though.
> 
> Best
> 
> Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270805

Subject and the content LGTM.
-- 
Best,
ID

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270808

Hi, this what I received from you.  Cheers, Roger

Return-path: <bounce-debian-user=debian=rogerprice.org@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: rprice@localhost
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:17:06 +0200
Received: from [::1] (helo=titan.rogerprice.org)
     by titan with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
     (envelope-from <bounce-debian-user=debian=rogerprice.org@lists.debian.org>)
     id 1sPKSX-000BB5-QT
     for rprice@localhost; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:17:06 +0200
Delivered-To: mailbox@rogerprice.org
Received: from mail.gandi.net [2001:4b98:e00::9]
     by titan.rogerprice.org with POP3 (fetchmail-6.4.16)
     for <rprice@localhost> (single-drop); Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:17:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100])
     by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7284F74003A
     for <debian@rogerprice.org>; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 11:15:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
     by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
     id BE07320671; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 11:15:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org  Thu Jul  4 11:15:21 
2024
Old-Return-Path: <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
     FOURLA,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable
     autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
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 9A68D2065E
     for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 11:15:13 +0000 
(UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
     tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1,
     LDO_WHITELIST=-5] 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 ujzTpCms6YZb for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>;
     Thu,  4 Jul 2024 11:15:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight:  NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check 
from: .loop. - helo: .mail37c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: 
.megamailservers.)
     FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
Received: from mail37c50.megamailservers.eu (mail176c50.megamailservers.eu 
[91.136.10.186])
     (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
     (Client did not present a certificate)
     by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3472064E
     for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 11:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authenticated-User: 01793666059@o2online.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu;
     s=maildub; t=1720091705;
     bh=NFdZXTvtPi7RA/43aM6v1rxa6iP8uBGeXo/HBz7i/x4=;
     h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
     b=Kt+u3inWKlgqA2fwE41IKx3r2P0umac0jZx2CxYqKJ4sQmJNmTPoc9qvtr1Bqa9/k
      nvkFOMxcBLmvCKWsrYNf1bcOIaV+Zs2LeG1pwbfyBlCfXwrYxaRRSBLodzICVqw8G3
      8YbVywtnmnf7DSK/o1SSLXDHCt+1m1pCdNs+n9l0=
Feedback-ID:hans.ullrich@lo
Received: from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de [89.183.193.109])
     (authenticated bits=0)
     by mail37c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 464BEwoJ032290
     (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
     for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:00 +0000
From: Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: This is a testmail!
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:14:58 +0200
Message-ID: <3645068.R56niFO833@protheus2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:

gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdefiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjug

hrpefhvffufffkggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdevhedvgffffefgveffieefveffueetuedtleef

veettdfhleejffegkeejffenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuh

hsvddrlhhotggrlhhnvghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghn
     rdhorhhg
X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=0.90
X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [0.90 / 6.00];
     CTE_CASE(0.50)[];
     MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[];
     MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
     ASN(0.00)[asn:13045, ipnet:89.183.0.0/16, country:DE];
     FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
     MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[];
     MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
     ARC_NA(0.00)[];
     RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0];
     TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
     RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
     FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
     TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[];
     SUBJECT_ENDS_EXCLAIM(0.00)[]
X-Origin-Country: DE
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <aPazZYmiIEL.A.hsPJ.JRohmB@bendel>
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/812904
X-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: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/3645068.R56niFO833@protheus2
Resent-Date: Thu,  4 Jul 2024 11:15:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-GND-Status: LEGIT
Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net;
     dkim=pass header.d=megamailservers.eu header.s=maildub header.b=Kt+u3inW;
     dmarc=none;
     spf=none (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of 
"bounce-debian-user=debian=rogerprice.org@lists.debian.org" has no SPF policy 
when checking 82.195.75.100)
     smtp.mailfrom="bounce-debian-user=debian=rogerprice.org@lists.debian.org"

Hi folks,

this is a testmail, because I got some trouble with the mailingist. As
reported before, I get all ,mails from debian-user@lists.debian.org with
tagged with *****SPAM**** added to the subject. This is because of some DKIM
failure, as reported before. As I could fix this by setting a special rule for
this mailaddresse in spamassassin, I know dicovered another issue.

When I am sending a mail to the list, it looks like the subject is completely
replaced with only "*****SPAM*****".

I would like to know, when this happens. Either during the transfer from me to
the debian server, or when it is sent from the debian server to me.

This mail has the subject "This is a testmail!".

It would be nice, if someone could tell me, if this mail is tagged with
"****SPAM****" somewhere and if the subject is removed or not.

This behaviour appeared suddenly several months ago and I do not know, what,
might have changed since then.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards

Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270810

My apologies for flooding the list with what should have been a private 
mailing.  Roger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270812

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Me again, sorry.


Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag! 


Subject: 
Re: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!


This is the header:


--------------------
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
X-Envelope-From: bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=loop.de@lists.debian.org
DMARC-Filter:
 OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu 464C5Iek122979
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loop.de
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
 spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
 dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
 header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu header.b="QLjumGn/"
Return-Path: <bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=loop.de@lists.debian.org>
Received:
 from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 464C5Iek122979 for
 <hans.ullrich@loop.de>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:21 +0000
Received:
 from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with
 QMQP id EA3E420682; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 12:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailbox-Line:
 From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org  Thu Jul  4 12:05:15 2024
Old-Return-Path: <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
 FOURLA,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable
 autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
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 C18E42067A for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,
  4 Jul 2024 12:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No,
 score=-6.301 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2,
 DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399,
 LDO_WHITELIST=-5] 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 CNGEsE8xgvQ4 for
 <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 12:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight:
  NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check from: .loop. -
 helo: .mail194c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: .megamailservers.) 
 FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
Received:
 from mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (mail208c50.megamailservers.eu
 [91.136.10.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bendel.debian.org
 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC67D20677 for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu,
  4 Jul 2024 12:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authenticated-User: 01793666059@o2online.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu;
 s=maildub; t=1720094700; bh=5Um9/MplAQNd+svZJOunmBGElnorPOi9odLzGqxgObQ=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=QLjumGn/60xFVhN9BUbajEg0uTOZxqi/Uz8jodz7E1EE2Hi7W3VtjJFW4LGmbJGnC
 Lt7Nym0B3iEmO+1/fxpnDfmt1lRnzu+Q65akTEd8eaEHbj8G7yo5OCpI4oVjRr7q9o
 pn0upeaUIrxnepbAwXeozeebIuTSx2zuaH0xvL30=
Feedback-ID: hans.ullrich@lo
Received:
 from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de [89.183.193.109])
 (authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with
 ESMTP id 464C4rxR025870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for
 <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:04:55 +0000
From: Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:04:53 +0200
Message-ID: <2408526.NG923GbCHz@protheus2>
In-Reply-To: <46505217.fMDQidcC6G@protheus2>
References:
 <3645068.R56niFO833@protheus2> <66868718.1030800@fastmail.fm>
 <46505217.fMDQidcC6G@protheus2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
 gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjgh
fggfgtgejudeftdfjphegsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefjrghnshcuoehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthhesl
hhoohhprdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfdvudekheefueevieelgefftdfhtedvlefgfefhieevveejud
elhffhleethfeknecukfhppeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdekledrudekfedrudelfedruddtleenucevlhh
ushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdhhvghlohepsg
gvnhguvghlrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhunhgtvgdquggvsghirghnqdhus
hgvrhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhpehlohhophdruggvsehlihhsthhsrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpnhg
spghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthheslhhoohhprdguvg
X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
 gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvf
fufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohho
phdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdethfeludejieeljeeugefgieekheeitdfggfehuedvvdfhjedute
ekkedtvdenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrgh
mpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuhhsvddrlhhotggrlhhnv
ghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhope
dupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghnrdhorhhg
X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=1.59
X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [1.59 / 6.00];
 R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[megamailservers.eu:s=maildub]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[];

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270823

Hans wrote:

> Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!

That's very surprising.

> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>  dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
>  header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu header.b="QLjumGn/"

I have absolutely no idea where that spam flag may be coming from.
It's a mystery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270824

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-07-04 at 12:59, Thomas Hochstein wrote:

> Hans wrote:
> 
>> Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!
> 
> That's very surprising.
> 
>> X-Spam-Flag: YES
>> X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
>> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>>  dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
>>  header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu header.b="QLjumGn/"
> 
> I have absolutely no idea where that spam flag may be coming from.
> It's a mystery.

Perhaps even more interestingly, I see the following, in the
ARC-Authentication-Results header in three mails from Hans in this
thread. (This is not the same as the Authentication-Results header, such
as you quoted, of which there appear to be four in each mail.)


The one which was sent as a reply to my mail has:

>> dkim=pass (1024-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=megamailservers.eu
>> header.i=@megamailservers.eu header.b=QOWbQzHX header.a=rsa-sha256
>> header.s=maildub

The one with the [SOLVED] tag, which was a reply to the previous, has:

>> dkim=fail (message has been altered, 1024-bit rsa key sha256)
>> header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu
>> header.b=QLjumGn/ header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=maildub

The one you were replying to has:

>> dkim=fail (message has been altered, 1024-bit rsa key sha256)
>> header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu
>> header.b=r8P8m4Og header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=maildub

Perhaps interestingly (or perhaps not), that last one appears to be
multipart MIME (one part with HTML and one part plain-text), whereas the
other two appear to be plain-text-only.

(I am not entirely certain which mail is the one from which Hans quoted
a set of headers. Those headers include a Subject: line with the
[SOLVED] tag, of which I've received only one message thus far via the
list in this thread; however, the headers in that mail as I received it
do not appear to *remotely* match the ones Hans quoted, enough so that I
am not confident of them being the same message. If they are, then that
might narrow down the places where the failure could be being
introduced.)


So we have three at least visible scenarios in just this thread: plain
text with DKIM pass, plain text with DKIM fail, and multipart MIME with
DKIM fail.

Hans, are you certain you composed those three messages the same way,
using the same interface of the same program, and sent them the same
way?

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270825

Hi The Wanderer,
> Hans, are you certain you composed those three messages the same way,
> using the same interface of the same program, and sent them the same
> way?

No, the first mail was created natively (= a new mail), the one with the 
"[SOLVED] in the subject was a reply to someones mail from the list and the 
last mail was also a reply this time of my of my own.

It looks like replying to soemone (my normal behaviour) is causing this issue. 
And it looks like, that I am getting the SPAM tag, not you. 

Some minutes ago I informed megamailservers.eu of my problem and sent them the 
mail with the headers, i sent here, too.

Hopefully I will get some response.

The strange thing is,this issue suddenly apeared from nowhere. I have nothing 
changed here (except of upgrades). I am running debian bookworm and my mail 
client is kmail. But that should not be the problem. 

Best 

Hans
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270826

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-07-04 at 15:25, Hans wrote:

> Hi The Wanderer,
> 
>> Hans, are you certain you composed those three messages the same
>> way, using the same interface of the same program, and sent them
>> the same way?
> 
> No, the first mail was created natively (= a new mail),

To clarify: the mail I listed first was the one which you wrote as a
reply to me, not the mail with which you started this thread. So both
that *and* the one after it were replies, but the one got a pass and the
other didn't.

> the one with the "[SOLVED] in the subject was a reply to someones
> mail from the list and the last mail was also a reply this time of my
> of my own.
> 
> It looks like replying to soemone (my normal behaviour) is causing
> this issue.

Except that the reply to my previous message did not get the issue.

(FWIW, your most recent reply - which is also a reply to a mail from me
- does have the "DKIM fail" header information.)

> And it looks like, that I am getting the SPAM tag, not you.

That much does seem to be the case, yes.

> Some minutes ago I informed megamailservers.eu of my problem and sent
> them the mail with the headers, i sent here, too.
> 
> Hopefully I will get some response.
> 
> The strange thing is,this issue suddenly apeared from nowhere. I have
> nothing changed here (except of upgrades). I am running debian
> bookworm and my mail client is kmail. But that should not be the
> problem.

I do agree that, as I think I've seen suggested in previous threads, the
most likely culprit here is your mail provider having changed something.
Hopefully the inquiry you've started with them will bear fruit; if it
does not, you may want to look into changing providers. (I can recommend
Fastmail, for whatever that's worth.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270828 — Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer

Surprisingly Testmail_2 appeared WITHOUT the SPAM tag. 

This one is a reply of a mail from The Wanderer. 

I expect it WITH the SPAM tag from the debian list.

Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270832 — Re: Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-07-04 at 16:07, Hans wrote:

> Surprisingly Testmail_2 appeared WITHOUT the SPAM tag. 
> 
> This one is a reply of a mail from The Wanderer. 
> 
> I expect it WITH the SPAM tag from the debian list.

This one showed up on my end with dkim=fail in the usual header.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270835 — Re: Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2024-07-04 at 16:10, The Wanderer wrote:

> On 2024-07-04 at 16:07, Hans wrote:
> 
>> Surprisingly Testmail_2 appeared WITHOUT the SPAM tag. 
>> 
>> This one is a reply of a mail from The Wanderer. 
>> 
>> I expect it WITH the SPAM tag from the debian list.
> 
> This one showed up on my end with dkim=fail in the usual header.

...and the second copy which I received *not* via the list (which I'm
assuming, but haven't verified, was sent by BCC or similar rather than
being a separate unique mail), which I did not see before sending my
previous reply, also had dkim=fail.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270836 — Re: Testmail_3: Reply to one of the mails from The Wanderer

Yes, I saw the DKIM=fail at the first time, but debian said, it is the fault 
of megamailservers.eu and theire servers are ok. 

So I contacted megamailservers.eu today, but generally I can do nothing else 
myself, as I am no admin of any involved mailservers.

So, hopefully they will answer. 

IMO something is wrong, or let's say, soemthing is not working as I expect it.

At the moment I have no further clue. So, we will wait. Lets stop for now. 

But thanks for the help and your time! 

Best

Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270840

Isn't this the usual DKIM problem with lists?
The From: has @loop.de, but the sender and DKIM signature
is from lists.debian.org.

That's why most lists these days rewrite the From: header.

   Detlef

On 7/4/24 14:24, Hans wrote:
> Me again, sorry.
> 
> 
> Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!
> 
> 
> Subject:
> Re: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
> 
> 
> This is the header:
> 
> 
> --------------------
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
> X-Envelope-From: bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=loop.de@lists.debian.org
> DMARC-Filter:
>   OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu 464C5Iek122979
> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>   dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loop.de
> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>   spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>   dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
>   header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu header.b="QLjumGn/"
> Return-Path: <bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=loop.de@lists.debian.org>
> Received:
>   from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
>   mail39c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 464C5Iek122979 for
>   <hans.ullrich@loop.de>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:21 +0000
> Received:
>   from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with
>   QMQP id EA3E420682; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 12:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Mailbox-Line:
>   From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org  Thu Jul  4 12:05:15 2024
> Old-Return-Path: <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on bendel.debian.org
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
>   FOURLA,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable
>   autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
> 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 C18E42067A for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,
>    4 Jul 2024 12:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
> X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No,
>   score=-6.301 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2,
>   DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399,
>   LDO_WHITELIST=-5] 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 CNGEsE8xgvQ4 for
>   <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 12:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
> X-policyd-weight:
>    NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check from: .loop. -
>   helo: .mail194c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: .megamailservers.)
>   FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
> Received:
>   from mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (mail208c50.megamailservers.eu
>   [91.136.10.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
>   (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bendel.debian.org
>   (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC67D20677 for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu,
>    4 Jul 2024 12:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Authenticated-User: 01793666059@o2online.de
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu;
>   s=maildub; t=1720094700; bh=5Um9/MplAQNd+svZJOunmBGElnorPOi9odLzGqxgObQ=;
>   h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
>   b=QLjumGn/60xFVhN9BUbajEg0uTOZxqi/Uz8jodz7E1EE2Hi7W3VtjJFW4LGmbJGnC
>   Lt7Nym0B3iEmO+1/fxpnDfmt1lRnzu+Q65akTEd8eaEHbj8G7yo5OCpI4oVjRr7q9o
>   pn0upeaUIrxnepbAwXeozeebIuTSx2zuaH0xvL30=
> Feedback-ID: hans.ullrich@lo
> Received:
>   from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de [89.183.193.109])
>   (authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with
>   ESMTP id 464C4rxR025870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
>   cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for
>   <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:04:55 +0000
> From: Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:04:53 +0200
> Message-ID: <2408526.NG923GbCHz@protheus2>
> In-Reply-To: <46505217.fMDQidcC6G@protheus2>
> References:
>   <3645068.R56niFO833@protheus2> <66868718.1030800@fastmail.fm>
>   <46505217.fMDQidcC6G@protheus2>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
> X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
> X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
> X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
> X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
>   gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
> ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjgh
> fggfgtgejudeftdfjphegsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefjrghnshcuoehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthhesl
> hhoohhprdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfdvudekheefueevieelgefftdfhtedvlefgfefhieevveejud
> elhffhleethfeknecukfhppeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdekledrudekfedrudelfedruddtleenucevlhh
> ushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdhhvghlohepsg
> gvnhguvghlrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhunhgtvgdquggvsghirghnqdhus
> hgvrhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhpehlohhophdruggvsehlihhsthhsrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpnhg
> spghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthheslhhoohhprdguvg
> X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
>   gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
> ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvf
> fufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohho
> phdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdethfeludejieeljeeugefgieekheeitdfggfehuedvvdfhjedute
> ekkedtvdenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrgh
> mpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuhhsvddrlhhotggrlhhnv
> ghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhope
> dupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghnrdhorhhg
> X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=1.59
> X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [1.59 / 6.00];
>   R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[megamailservers.eu:s=maildub]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[];

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270841

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:55 PM Detlef Vollmann <dv@vollmann.ch> wrote:
>
> Isn't this the usual DKIM problem with lists?
> The From: has @loop.de, but the sender and DKIM signature
> is from lists.debian.org.
>
> That's why most lists these days rewrite the From: header.

One small nit: rewriting headers is not approved in the RFCs, so some
(many?) mail servers don't do it. I know the folks who run the Claws
Mail mailing list refuse to do it.

Also see Tolerating Mailing-List Modifications,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications-01.html>.

Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270844

I didn’t chech the header.
But loop.de should have its own signature.
Debian list server rewrite envelope address to list adress due to SRS 
requirements.
But message header address is not changed as well as message body 
(debian list seems not modifying message body), so DKIM for loop.de will 
be valid, then DMARC for loop.de will pass as well.


On 2024-07-05 04:54, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> Isn't this the usual DKIM problem with lists?
> The From: has @loop.de, but the sender and DKIM signature
> is from lists.debian.org.
> 
> That's why most lists these days rewrite the From: header.
> 
>   Detlef
> 
> On 7/4/24 14:24, Hans wrote:
>> Me again, sorry.
>> 
>> 
>> Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!
>> 
>> 
>> Subject:
>> Re: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
>> 
>> 
>> This is the header:
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------
>> X-Spam-Flag: YES
>> X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
>> X-Envelope-From: 
>> bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=loop.de@lists.debian.org
>> DMARC-Filter:
>>   OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu 464C5Iek122979
>> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>>   dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loop.de
>> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>>   spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
>> Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
>>   dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
>>   header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu 
>> header.b="QLjumGn/"
>> Return-Path: 
>> <bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=loop.de@lists.debian.org>
>> Received:
>>   from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
>>   mail39c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 
>> 464C5Iek122979 for
>>   <hans.ullrich@loop.de>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:21 +0000
>> Received:
>>   from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org 
>> (Postfix) with
>>   QMQP id EA3E420682; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 12:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
>> X-Mailbox-Line:
>>   From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org  Thu Jul  4 12:05:15 2024
>> Old-Return-Path: <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
>> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on 
>> bendel.debian.org
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=4.0 
>> tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
>>   FOURLA,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST 
>> autolearn=unavailable
>>   autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
>> 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 C18E42067A for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,
>>    4 Jul 2024 12:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
>> X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
>> X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No,
>>   score=-6.301 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2,
>>   DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1, 
>> KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399,
>>   LDO_WHITELIST=-5] 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 CNGEsE8xgvQ4 for
>>   <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,  4 Jul 2024 12:05:03 
>> +0000 (UTC)
>> X-policyd-weight:
>>    NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check from: 
>> .loop. -
>>   helo: .mail194c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: .megamailservers.)
>>   FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
>> Received:
>>   from mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (mail208c50.megamailservers.eu
>>   [91.136.10.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher 
>> ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
>>   (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by 
>> bendel.debian.org
>>   (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC67D20677 for 
>> <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu,
>>    4 Jul 2024 12:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
>> X-Authenticated-User: 01793666059@o2online.de
>> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; 
>> d=megamailservers.eu;
>>   s=maildub; t=1720094700; 
>> bh=5Um9/MplAQNd+svZJOunmBGElnorPOi9odLzGqxgObQ=;
>>   h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
>>   b=QLjumGn/60xFVhN9BUbajEg0uTOZxqi/Uz8jodz7E1EE2Hi7W3VtjJFW4LGmbJGnC
>>   Lt7Nym0B3iEmO+1/fxpnDfmt1lRnzu+Q65akTEd8eaEHbj8G7yo5OCpI4oVjRr7q9o
>>   pn0upeaUIrxnepbAwXeozeebIuTSx2zuaH0xvL30=
>> Feedback-ID: hans.ullrich@lo
>> Received:
>>   from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de 
>> [89.183.193.109])
>>   (authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu 
>> (8.14.9/8.13.1) with
>>   ESMTP id 464C4rxR025870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
>>   cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for
>>   <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:04:55 +0000
>> From: Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de>
>> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>> Subject: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
>> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:04:53 +0200
>> Message-ID: <2408526.NG923GbCHz@protheus2>
>> In-Reply-To: <46505217.fMDQidcC6G@protheus2>
>> References:
>>   <3645068.R56niFO833@protheus2> <66868718.1030800@fastmail.fm>
>>   <46505217.fMDQidcC6G@protheus2>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>> X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
>> X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
>> X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
>> X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
>> X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
>>   
>> gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
>> ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjgh
>> fggfgtgejudeftdfjphegsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefjrghnshcuoehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthhesl
>> hhoohhprdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfdvudekheefueevieelgefftdfhtedvlefgfefhieevveejud
>> elhffhleethfeknecukfhppeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdekledrudekfedrudelfedruddtleenucevlhh
>> ushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdhhvghlohepsg
>> gvnhguvghlrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhunhgtvgdquggvsghirghnqdhus
>> hgvrhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhpehlohhophdruggvsehlihhsthhsrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpnhg
>> spghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthheslhhoohhprdguvg
>> X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
>>   
>> gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
>> ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvf
>> fufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohho
>> phdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdethfeludejieeljeeugefgieekheeitdfggfehuedvvdfhjedute
>> ekkedtvdenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrgh
>> mpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuhhsvddrlhhotggrlhhnv
>> ghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhope
>> dupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghnrdhorhhg
>> X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=1.59
>> X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [1.59 / 6.00];
>>   R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[megamailservers.eu:s=maildub]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[];

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web