Hi, 12 juin 2020 à 22:53 de recovery...@enotuniq.net:
> Yes, but I just cannot find that particular e-mail of yours with > Message-Id: <> m9er2er--...@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 mst...@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 l0f...@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...@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 <l0f...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org Sun Jun 7 17:38:07 2020Old-Return-Path: <l0f...@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-u...@bendel.debian.org Delivered-To: lists-debian-u...@bendel.debian.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D0220487 for <lists-debian-u...@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-u...@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: l0f...@tuta.io To: Debian User <debian-user@lists.debian.org>Message-ID: <m9er2er--...@tuta.io>In-Reply-To: <dfce1b61-8439-4c29-4d8b-1dec467fe...@gmx.de>References: <dfce1b61-8439-4c29-4d8b-1dec467fe...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org?subject=help>List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>Precedence: listResent-Sender: debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/m9er2er--...@tuta.io Resent-Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 17:38:07 +0000 (UTC) 13 juin 2020 à 09:52 de a...@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 a...@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
