On Dienstag, 13. Juni 2023 19:56:38 CEST Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> BTW your GPG signature doesn't verify.
It does for me. For all of his messages in this thread.
Regards,
Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Alessandro Vesely wrote in
<8fe44a06-cb26-db9b-bf9a-8251baf56...@tana.it>:
...
|d= is not aligned. Really, you gain nothing by removing DKIM-Signature:\
|'s,
|except saving a few bytes.
Most non-spam non-patch messages i see have an exorbitant text /
header data relation. I could not tell
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 13:02:09 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely (from Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:19:02
+0200):
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 08:46:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users (from Mon,
12 Jun 2023
Alexander Leidinger wrote in
<20230613091839.horde.xomd2-klk1ptncda-lgs...@webmail.leidinger.net>:
|Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso (from Mon, 12 Jun 2023
|21:54:45 +0200):
...
|> non-deleted things from there (also automatically). I am happy
|> that many lists i am on continue to use that
Quoting Alessandro Vesely (from Tue, 13 Jun 2023
11:19:02 +0200):
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 08:46:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users
(from Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:45:37 +0200):
The From was re-written be the list and as such the header
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 11:40:39 +0200 Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
BTW, the whole DKIM thing does not protect the body of a mail because
for example the Content-type is not commonly included in the hash and
thus you can change the boundary in this header and then tweak the body.
That hack
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:46, Alexander Leidinger said:
> DKIM doesn't specify an automatic removal of a sinature. So I
> postulate there is no DKIM related tool which does this (only
formail -I DKIM-Signature
BTW, the whole DKIM thing does not protect the body of a mail because
for example the
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 08:46:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users (from Mon, 12
Jun 2023 18:45:37 +0200):
The From was re-written be the list and as such the header check fails. The
body check fails as the list adds the following:
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 09:26:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Werner Koch via Gnupg-users (from Tue, 13 Jun
2023 09:02:31 +0200):
lists.gnupg.org does not do DKIM. I know stripped the obvious wrong
DKIM-Signature headers before they are processed by Mailman. Let's see
On Mon 12/Jun/2023 21:24:54 +0200 Konstantin Ryabitsev via Gnupg-users wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 06:45:37PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users
wrote:
What the list-software would need to do is to strip the original DKIM signature
Why? Original signatures can often be recovered.
Quoting Werner Koch via Gnupg-users (from Tue,
13 Jun 2023 09:02:31 +0200):
lists.gnupg.org does not do DKIM. I know stripped the obvious wrong
DKIM-Signature headers before they are processed by Mailman. Let's see
whether this solves the problem. Those of you in C should see my DKIM
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users
(from Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:45:37 +0200):
The From was re-written be the list and as such the header check
fails. The body check fails as the list adds the following:
---snip---
___
Gnupg-users mailing
Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso (from Mon, 12 Jun 2023
21:54:45 +0200):
Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote in
<20230612-landline-jawless-f2c113@meerkat>:
|On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 06:45:37PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-us\
|ers wrote:
|> Omitting subject tag and footer seems to me to be worse
Hi!
When posting mails to lists.gnupg.org the mails are received at our
standard MX and are then forwarded to a the Mailman box
(lists.gnupg.org). Over there we do some minimal spam detection and
then pass it to mailman. Mailman changes From to have the list address.
lists.gnupg.org does not
14 matches
Mail list logo
