Hi Ben, gentle reminder about this issue? I’m worried I (and maybe others) are going to miss gitlab notifications.
Cheers, Joachim Am Donnerstag, dem 01.12.2022 um 10:21 +0200 schrieb Bryan Richter via ghc-devs: > Thanks for noticing, Joachim! > > Ben Gamari is still the primary contact for GitLab configuration... > Ben, maybe you know something about this? > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:12 PM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 05:33:44PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > > > I noticed that a small number of Gitlab notification emails end up in > > > my spamfilter. While there is not much you can do about triggering some > > > bayesian style spam filter at my email provider (mailbox.org), I did > > > notice this in the headers: > > > > > > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.704 tagged_above=2 required=6 > > > tests=[DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HS_RSPAMD_10_11=2.5, > > > HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, > > > URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no > > > Authentication-Results: spamfilter01.heinlein-hosting.de (amavisd-new); > > > dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (bad RSA signature)" > > > header.d=gitlab.haskell.org > > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; > > > d=gitlab.haskell.org; > > > s=mail; t=1669733134; > > > bh=D0NUcHiskEnwSP99umP3zo8Fz8fl74OgAJ8NRDKCsp4=; > > > h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: > > > List-Unsubscribe; > > > > > > b=R+WMLfhRZZdYxMd6K6w+iodDe8EHzwONNArNyboqsU5NnafPRhKZ1UeGxO/BCMvEK > > > > > > M7XHRRrBsPfRYpTph7xSGY427KGXieASVg1GDhAiwKSLBCiqDdkBaoJLLUIfUD02NS > > > ouI3tvQ9mddNdaEK7retq8N+29hzs/ezf9cpgy+Q= > > > > Indeed the signature in "b=" was not made by the key at > > mail._domainkey.gitlab.haskell.org. Running the below: > > > > sig=$( > > printf "%s\n%s\n%s\n" \ > > > > R+WMLfhRZZdYxMd6K6w+iodDe8EHzwONNArNyboqsU5NnafPRhKZ1UeGxO/BCMvE \ > > > > KM7XHRRrBsPfRYpTph7xSGY427KGXieASVg1GDhAiwKSLBCiqDdkBaoJLLUIfUD0 \ > > 2NSouI3tvQ9mddNdaEK7retq8N+29hzs/ezf9cpgy+Q= > > ) > > > > pkey=$( > > dig +short -t txt mail._domainkey.gitlab.haskell.org | > > perl -MMIME::Base64 -ne ' > > /^"v=DKIM1;/ or next; > > print decode_base64($1) if m{;\s*p=(\S+?)(?:;|$)} > > ' | > > openssl pkey -pubin -inform DER > > ) > > > > openssl rsautl -raw -encrypt -pubin \ > > -inkey <( printf "%s\n" "$pkey" ) \ > > -in <(printf "%s\n" "$sig" | openssl base64 -d) | > > xxd -p > > > > the output is: > > > > 509bfc93a492f1b5328308e51624d9a7ed1378861f577b11413c5034bc0c > > 673d61660434d4bc30844e7648da0f9605923805973a313a8c3bc82215cc > > ac447e47551087c544a0592ac3ae48474584bad7d9ca5b850a67493a7977 > > d28aaa3a9a7580d165dc4f31ff484bdbc40e94a2be1750e71c51c555b5c1 > > 6bc051947bb07ae4 > > > > Which is not a PKCS#1.5 padded signature block. So either the > > "b=" value was corrupted in transit, or it was signed by a key > > that is different from what is published in DNS. > > > > > but maybe Postfix is not using the right key? > > > > Strictly speaking that's not Postfix itself, but some DKIM milter, but > > nits aside, more likely a stale public key is published in DNS. > > > > -- > > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > ghc-devs@haskell.org > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs -- Joachim Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs