Re: Slightly off-topic: anybody know of a way to keep one's Debian User List posts from failing DMARC?
Hello, On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:58:13AM -0700, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > I'm told that the Debian List Server doesn't rewrite "From" > headers for DMARC-enabled senders, and neither does it do anything > else to handle DMARC-enabled senders. Correct, so the SPF test will always fail as the list pretends to be your domain when it sends out mail from you. But the DKIM test can still pass, because the Debian list software does not alter the body of your mail or any of the headers you are likely to sign with DKIM. And indeed, your email that I am replying to was a DKIM pass and thus would be a DMARC pass as only one of the two is needed. Many mailing lists modify the body, e.g. to prepend tags to the subject and/or to append a footer with list information. These mailing lists can never pass DKIM because the mail content is signed. Their only option if they care about a DMARC pass is to rewrite the sender address so that their mail comes from their own domain, then they can make SPF and DKIM pass and alter the content as they like. You will see many DMARC failures from such mailing lists. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: help me diagnose rt2800usb
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 08:02:31PM +, Long Wind wrote: > i've modified some details to protect privacy > > root@debian:~# ip link set wlx0022c0001a95 up > root@debian:~# iwlist wlx0022c0001a95 scanning | grep SSID > ESSID:"WiFi-950" > The firmware you need for these Realtek chips is probably in the non-free package firmware-misc-nonfree All the very best, Andy Cater
Re: help me diagnose rt2800usb
i've modified some details to protect privacy root@debian:~# ip link set wlx0022c0001a95 up root@debian:~# iwlist wlx0022c0001a95 scanning | grep SSID ESSID:"WiFi-950"
Re: Slightly off-topic: anybody know of a way to keep one's Debian User List posts from failing DMARC?
James H. H. Lampert wrote: > Please excuse the off-topic post, but I'm hoping this has come up with > others here: > > I've been tasked with implementing DMARC on our domain. And I'm told > that the Debian List Server doesn't rewrite "From" headers for > DMARC-enabled senders, and neither does it do anything else to handle > DMARC-enabled senders. Couple of years ago, when I was working with a Telco they implemented DMARC and were thinking it will be soon very strict, but it turned out many implemented different policies and as Dan Ritter said, it is one important factor. Back then (2016) I asked the Telco people (as part of the BA) how many responses (mails with statistics) they would expect from the peers - they said they would expect that the major players would do DMARC - respectively we setup a DB based on this assumption ... well the moment we turned the collection on - the DB exploded because it was tausends of domains already implementing DMARK with SPF and sending back the statistics.
Re: Slightly off-topic: anybody know of a way to keep one's Debian User List posts from failing DMARC?
James H. H. Lampert wrote: > Please excuse the off-topic post, but I'm hoping this has come up with > others here: > > I've been tasked with implementing DMARC on our domain. And I'm told that > the Debian List Server doesn't rewrite "From" headers for DMARC-enabled > senders, and neither does it do anything else to handle DMARC-enabled > senders. DMARC is one of many factors your mail servers need to consider when deciding whether to accept, bounce or silently drop a piece of mail. It is perfectly reasonable to set DMARC as a strong but not overwhelming factor, and then to write allow lists based on, for example: List-Id: which is a pretty good representation that this is Debian mail. So good, in fact, that RFC2919 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2919 suggests it. -dsr-
Slightly off-topic: anybody know of a way to keep one's Debian User List posts from failing DMARC?
Please excuse the off-topic post, but I'm hoping this has come up with others here: I've been tasked with implementing DMARC on our domain. And I'm told that the Debian List Server doesn't rewrite "From" headers for DMARC-enabled senders, and neither does it do anything else to handle DMARC-enabled senders. -- James H. H. Lampert Touchtone Corporation
Re: Bullseye default python
On Wed 09 Jun 2021 at 10:39:32 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote: > I recently update one computer to bullseye. > So I noticed that /usr/bin/python is not created. > I probably missed the news how this will be handled. > I think python never was managed through update-alternatives, > /usr/bin/python was just a link to /usr/bin/python2 > which was again just a link to python2.7 > > would it be possible to point /usr/bin/python to > python3? > Or is 2.7 still the default? >From the wiki: NOTE: Debian testing (bullseye) has removed the "python" package and the '/usr/bin/python' symlink due to the deprecation of Python 2. No packaged scripts should depend on the existence of '/usr/bin/python': if they do, that is a bug that should be reported to Debian. You can use the 'python-is-python3' or 'python-is-python2' packages to restore an appropriate '/usr/bin/python' symlink for third-party or legacy scripts. https://wiki.debian.org/Python which seems reasonable to me. That seems to correspond to bullets 3 and 4 in PEP394: Distributors may choose to set the behavior of the python command as follows: ● python2, ● python3, ● not provide python command, ● allow python to be configurable by an end user or a system administrator. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ Cheers, David.
Re: Bullseye default python
Henning Follmann wrote: > Hello, > I recently update one computer to bullseye. > So I noticed that /usr/bin/python is not created. > I probably missed the news how this will be handled. > I think python never was managed through update-alternatives, > /usr/bin/python was just a link to /usr/bin/python2 > which was again just a link to python2.7 > > would it be possible to point /usr/bin/python to > python3? > Or is 2.7 still the default? I have two bullseye systems here. On one, /usr/bin/python does not exist, but python2, 3 and so forth exist. On the other, /usr/bin/python is a symlink to /usr/bin/python2 Interesting. -dsr-
Bullseye default python
Hello, I recently update one computer to bullseye. So I noticed that /usr/bin/python is not created. I probably missed the news how this will be handled. I think python never was managed through update-alternatives, /usr/bin/python was just a link to /usr/bin/python2 which was again just a link to python2.7 would it be possible to point /usr/bin/python to python3? Or is 2.7 still the default? -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com
Re: help me diagnose rt2800usb
Long Wind wrote: > On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 7:07:47 PM EDT, Dan Ritter > wrote: > Try: > > rfkill list > > -dsr- > root@debian:~# rfkill list > 0: phy0: Wireless LAN > Soft blocked: no > Hard blocked: no > OK, not an rfkill issue. Can it see any networks? sudo ip set wlx0022c0001a95 up sudo iw dev wlx0022c0001a95 scan | grep SSID -dsr-
