subject:"why \!oh why Debian and application list"

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:05:24PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> 13 juin 2020 à 21:01 de l0f...@tuta.io:
> 
> > Ok let's see for me as well:
> >
> > >From my point of view
> >
> > >From: l0f4r0
> >
> > l0f4r0
> >
> Everything's ok:
> 
> Authentication-Results: w3.tutanota.de (dis=neutral; info=dmarc domain 
> policy); 
> dmarc=pass (dis=neutral p=quarantine; aspf=r; adkim=s; pSrc=dns) 
> header.from=tuta.io;
> dkim=pass header.d=tuta.io header.s=s1 header.b=m6Vop4KZ

You're looking at the wrong header. It's X-Spam-Status and
X-Amavis-Spam-Status you should worry about. Authetication-Results is
set by your MTA receiving your own mail from the list.

But yes, they are both OK for this and your previous e-mails.

Which one of these is under your control btw, w3.tutanota.de or
w4.tutanota.de?

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

13 juin 2020 à 21:01 de l0f...@tuta.io:

> Ok let's see for me as well:
>
> >From my point of view
>
> >From: l0f4r0
>
> l0f4r0
>
Everything's ok:

Authentication-Results: w3.tutanota.de (dis=neutral; info=dmarc domain policy); 
dmarc=pass (dis=neutral p=quarantine; aspf=r; adkim=s; pSrc=dns) 
header.from=tuta.io;
dkim=pass header.d=tuta.io header.s=s1 header.b=m6Vop4KZ

Really confusing...

l0f4r0

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:01:59PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> 13 juin 2020 à 17:12 de recovery...@enotuniq.net:
> 
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 06:10:15PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> >> Let's see.
> >>
> >> >From what I saw this should fail DKIM test.
> >>
> >> And, for the good measure:
> >>
> >> >From: this is not a valid RFC-822 header
> >>
> >
> > Ok, clearly I don't have any problem with DKIM on this list.
> >
> Ok let's see for me as well:
> 
> >From my point of view
> 
> >From: l0f4r0
> 
> l0f4r0

Your e-mail passed DKIM test on my MTA with flying colors.

Try that base64-encoded html thing next.

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

13 juin 2020 à 17:12 de recovery...@enotuniq.net:

> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 06:10:15PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>
>> Let's see.
>>
>> >From what I saw this should fail DKIM test.
>>
>> And, for the good measure:
>>
>> >From: this is not a valid RFC-822 header
>>
>
> Ok, clearly I don't have any problem with DKIM on this list.
>
Ok let's see for me as well:

>From my point of view

>From: l0f4r0

l0f4r0

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:21:12PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:08:14PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> > 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...).
> 
> It was almost certainly done by Debian's mailing list software.

It was definitely done by Debian's mailing list software.
It looks like this:

1) bendel.debian.org (postfix) receives the e-mail in question from
w4.tutanota.de.

2) bendel (postfix) feeds incoming e-mail to bendel (amavisd), which
reports that DKIM is OK:

X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, ... DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1 ...

3) bendel (amavisd) tosses e-mail back to bendel (postfix), which tosses
it in turn to bendel (spamassassin).

4) The latter reports that DKIM test failed:

X-Spam-Status: No, ... tests=DIGITS_LETTERS,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED

5) bendel (spamassassin) tosses the e-mail to bendel (postfix) again,
the latter does the delivery. DKIM test fails again:

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"

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 06:10:15PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>   Hi.
> 
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 04:32:02PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> > I've another example: 
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00016.html
> > One more time, I started a new line with "From" which got escaped with a 
> > leading ">".
> > Result: dkim=fail reason="body hash does not match".
> > Maybe it's the root cause after all...
> > Does someone else have DKIM issues as well? Or maybe you don't pay 
> > attention to that ;)
> 
> Let's see.
> 
> >From what I saw this should fail DKIM test.
> 
> And, for the good measure:
> 
> >From: this is not a valid RFC-822 header

Ok, clearly I don't have any problem with DKIM on this list.

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 04:32:02PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> I've another example: 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00016.html
> One more time, I started a new line with "From" which got escaped with a 
> leading ">".
> Result: dkim=fail reason="body hash does not match".
> Maybe it's the root cause after all...
> Does someone else have DKIM issues as well? Or maybe you don't pay attention 
> to that ;)

Let's see.

>From what I saw this should fail DKIM test.

And, for the good measure:

>From: this is not a valid RFC-822 header

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

I've another example: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00016.html
One more time, I started a new line with "From" which got escaped with a 
leading ">".
Result: dkim=fail reason="body hash does not match".
Maybe it's the root cause after all...
Does someone else have DKIM issues as well? Or maybe you don't pay attention to 
that ;)

Anyway, what I understand so far is that one has no guarantee DKIM will succeed 
when writing to mailing lists. Maybe it's not so serious as long as there is no 
specific DMARC policy discarding the emails...

l0f4r0

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:28:45AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 13 June 2020 09:19:39 Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:12:06AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > No > present
> >
> > I think you are confused. None of us wrote any such line so I have
> > no idea where you are seeing it, unless you are looking at the header
> > section and getting confused. We are talking about the body of the
> > email. You can see the ">From" text in the archives and in the
> > original message in this thread if you look in your own mail client:
> >
> The quote was from the rawmessage display that tde's version of kmail 
> gives you for a press of the v key, and yes its from the header.

Which is not, and has never been, what we are talking about. Please
read more carefully.

> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00215.html
> 
> Looks normal there.

If you do not see a line on the above web page that starts with
">From" then something is very very wrong somewhere. But I think you
have not looked hard enough.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi,

13 juin 2020 à 14:21 de a...@strugglers.net:

> The mbox mail archive format is a single file containing all
> messages concatenated together. Separate messages are recognised by
> a line that starts:
>
> >From > y...@example.com>  ...
>
> As you can imagine if a message body contained such text it might
> prematurely end the emails and then the next email would be of an
> invalid format.
>
> As a result a lot of (mostly older) mail software escapes mail body
> lines that begin with "From" by putting a ">" in front, sometimes
> even when not in the context of archiving into an mbox. This is most
> likely what happened here. The use of ">" for this is just a very
> common convention.
>
Thanks, I was not aware of this.
However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, no?
If I'm right, escaping "From" with a leading ">" is just for mailing software 
internals (mbox), the reverse process is applied when displaying the final 
message...

13 juin 2020 à 15:12 de ghesk...@shentel.net:

> On Saturday 13 June 2020 08:24:49 Andy Smith wrote:
>
>> Amusingly I didn't think to point out that by sending a line that
>> starts with that, Debian's list software will quote it! I should
>> probably have indented it with whitespace. Anyway, I didn't type the
>> ">" there; Debian's list software inserted it.
>>
> It is not present when your msg arrives here.
>
I confirm. Maybe it's your email client that did that?

l0f4r0

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-13 Thread Gene Heskett

On Saturday 13 June 2020 09:19:39 Andy Smith wrote:

> Hi Gene,
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:12:06AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Here is a copy/paste of the from line as it arrives here
> >  From: l0f...@tuta.io
> > No > present
>
> I think you are confused. None of us wrote any such line so I have
> no idea where you are seeing it, unless you are looking at the header
> section and getting confused. We are talking about the body of the
> email. You can see the ">From" text in the archives and in the
> original message in this thread if you look in your own mail client:
>
The quote was from the rawmessage display that tde's version of kmail 
gives you for a press of the v key, and yes its from the header.

> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00215.html

Looks normal there. Bur that msg is not From: l0f...@tuta.io
its from you.

> Cheers,
> Andy


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-13 Thread Jim Popovitch

On Sat, 2020-06-13 at 07:56 +, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 07:52:55AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From"
> > quoted with a ">".
> > 
> > Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM.
> 
> 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).
> 
> So I would not expect the DKIM situation to change any time soon with
> regard to Debian mailing lists.

DKIM and Mailinglists has never changed, it's never been advised to mix
the two, and it won't be.  What you should be aspiring for is ARC.

-Jim P.

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi Gene,

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:12:06AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Here is a copy/paste of the from line as it arrives here
>  From: l0f...@tuta.io
> No > present

I think you are confused. None of us wrote any such line so I have
no idea where you are seeing it, unless you are looking at the header
section and getting confused. We are talking about the body of the
email. You can see the ">From" text in the archives and in the
original message in this thread if you look in your own mail client:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00215.html

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-13 Thread Gene Heskett

On Saturday 13 June 2020 08:24:49 Andy Smith wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:21:12PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > The mbox mail archive format is a single file containing all
> > messages concatenated together. Separate messages are recognised by
> >
> > a line that starts:
> > >From y...@example.com ...
>
> Amusingly I didn't think to point out that by sending a line that
> starts with that, Debian's list software will quote it! I should
> probably have indented it with whitespace. Anyway, I didn't type the
> ">" there; Debian's list software inserted it.
>
It is not present when your msg arrives here.

> Cheers,
> Andy
Here is a copy/paste of the from line as it arrives here
 From: l0f...@tuta.io
No > present

So I would be questioning your service provider. tuta.io

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:21:12PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> The mbox mail archive format is a single file containing all
> messages concatenated together. Separate messages are recognised by
> a line that starts:
> 
> >From y...@example.com ...

Amusingly I didn't think to point out that by sending a line that
starts with that, Debian's list software will quote it! I should
probably have indented it with whitespace. Anyway, I didn't type the
">" there; Debian's list software inserted it.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

> The optimum programming team size is 1.
Has Jurassic Park taught us nothing? — pfilandr

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:08:14PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> 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...).

It was almost certainly done by Debian's mailing list software.

> Why would they do that? ">" is rather usually indicated to insert quotations 
> isn't it?

The mbox mail archive format is a single file containing all
messages concatenated together. Separate messages are recognised by
a line that starts:

>From y...@example.com ...

As you can imagine if a message body contained such text it might
prematurely end the emails and then the next email would be of an
invalid format.

As a result a lot of (mostly older) mail software escapes mail body
lines that begin with "From" by putting a ">" in front, sometimes
even when not in the context of archiving into an mbox. This is most
likely what happened here. The use of ">" for this is just a very
common convention.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

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.dewith SMTP (SubEthaSMTP 3.1.7) 
id KB5CNTA9for 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= Received: from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org 
[82.195.75.100]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E710910602CF for 
; Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:38:11 + (UTC)Received: from localhost 
(localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQPid 
645DA20490; Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:38:07 + (UTC)X-Mailbox-Line: From 
debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org Sun Jun  7 17:38:07 2020Old-Return-Path: 
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 
; Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:38:00 + 
(UTC)X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank 
en-htX-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.201 tagged_above=-1 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 ;   Sun,  7 Jun 2020 
17:37:55 + (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 AE09620485for 
; Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:37:55 + (UTC)Received: 
from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164])by w4.tutanota.de 
(Postfix) with ESMTP id E763E1060254  for ; Sun,  
7 Jun 2020 17:37:52 + (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 Message-ID: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: why !oh why Debian 
and application listMIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset=UTF-8Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableX-Rc-Virus:

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 07:52:55AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From"
> quoted with a ">".
> 
> Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM.

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).

So I would not expect the DKIM situation to change any time soon with
regard to Debian mailing lists.

It is one of the reasons why I support moving to Discourse for use
cases such as this list.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:30:44PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> 12 juin 2020 à 22:16 de mst...@debian.org:
> > More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list 
> > was base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software 
> > autoconverted that to plain text--which would mean there's no way to 
> > preserve a valid DKIM signature.
> >
> It's a nice explanation BUT why most of my emails are ok then on the ML?

Looking at the email concerned, it had a line starting with "From"
quoted with a ">".

Mailing lists often do things like that, breaking DKIM.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-13 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Vi, 12 iun 20, 22:45:13, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> 12 juin 2020 à 22:32 de recovery...@enotuniq.net:
> 
> > Of course,
> > refraining from sending html e-mails here would be easier solution ;)
> >
> I'd like nothing better but it seems this is not possible currently on 
> Tutanota web app.

You could be using any provider to *post* to mailing lists with public 
archives.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)


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

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-12 Thread Reco

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:45:13PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> Hi Reco,
> 
> 12 juin 2020 à 22:32 de recovery...@enotuniq.net:
> 
> > Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's
> > DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable
> > side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes.
> >
> Thanks, I will submit this lead to my email provider.

As Michael Stone helpfully pointed - it might not be enough.

> > I'd like to see a headers of this problematic e-mail too. Can you post
> > them please?
> >
> I'm not sure to understand  your request.
> The only headers I  have are those from incoming emails. As a ML subscriber 
> you have access to the headers like me, don't you?

Yes, but I just cannot find that particular e-mail of yours with
Message-Id: .
And the search via Web interface finds nothing.

> Or maybe you are speaking about the original body?

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.

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-12 Thread l0f4r0

Hi Reco,

12 juin 2020 à 22:32 de recovery...@enotuniq.net:

> Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's
> DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable
> side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes.
>
Thanks, I will submit this lead to my email provider.

> Of course,
> refraining from sending html e-mails here would be easier solution ;)
>
I'd like nothing better but it seems this is not possible currently on Tutanota 
web app.

> I'd like to see a headers of this problematic e-mail too. Can you post
> them please?
>
I'm not sure to understand  your request.
The only headers I  have are those from incoming emails. As a ML subscriber you 
have access to the headers like me, don't you?
Or maybe you are speaking about the original body?
Best regards,
l0f4r0

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:32:20PM +0300, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:16:23PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:36:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> > > My email below got a DKIM issue.
> >
> > It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.
>
> For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail DKIM 
validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from DKIM_VALID to
> DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on bendel.) On my 
system that one says that it fails dkim because the body was altered. Looking at
> the body my best guess would be that it's a normalization/line length issue 
on the part of the dkim signer, but without the original message that's just a
> guess.

More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list was 
base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software autoconverted that 
to
plain text--which would mean there's no way to preserve a valid DKIM signature.

There might be a way. Current OP DKIM policy is (I have no idea why
certain headers are listed twice):

DKIM-Signature: ... 
h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender;

Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's
DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable
side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes.

No, the mail should fail because the body has literally changed (all the 
html tags are gone).

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-12 Thread Reco

Hi.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:16:23PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:36:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> > > > My email below got a DKIM issue.
> > > 
> > > It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.
> > 
> > For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail DKIM 
> > validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from DKIM_VALID 
> > to
> > DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on bendel.) On my 
> > system that one says that it fails dkim because the body was altered. 
> > Looking at
> > the body my best guess would be that it's a normalization/line length issue 
> > on the part of the dkim signer, but without the original message that's 
> > just a
> > guess.
> 
> More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list was 
> base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software autoconverted 
> that to
> plain text--which would mean there's no way to preserve a valid DKIM 
> signature.

There might be a way. Current OP DKIM policy is (I have no idea why
certain headers are listed twice):

DKIM-Signature: ... 
h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender;

Removing Content-Type (and maybe Content-Transfer-Encoding) from OP's
DKIM policy should do the trick, although it can has certain undesirable
side-effects if MTA in question is used for other purposes. Of course,
refraining from sending html e-mails here would be easier solution ;)

I'd like to see a headers of this problematic e-mail too. Can you post
them please?

Reco

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-12 Thread l0f4r0

Hi,

12 juin 2020 à 22:16 de mst...@debian.org:

> More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list was 
> base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software autoconverted 
> that to plain text--which would mean there's no way to preserve a valid DKIM 
> signature.
>
It's a nice explanation BUT why most of my emails are ok then on the ML?

NB: no need to send me other specimen for the time being, many thanks :)

Best regards,
l0f4r0

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)


On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:36:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

My email below got a DKIM issue.


It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.


For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail 
DKIM validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from 
DKIM_VALID to DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on 
bendel.) On my system that one says that it fails dkim because the 
body was altered. Looking at the body my best guess would be that it's 
a normalization/line length issue on the part of the dkim signer, but 
without the original message that's just a guess.


More information from the OP, it looks like the message sent to the list 
was base64 encoded html. So I'm guessing that the list software 
autoconverted that to plain text--which would mean there's no way to 
preserve a valid DKIM signature.

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)


On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 09:52:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

My email below got a DKIM issue.


It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.


For the record, I looked at the wrong email. The right one did fail DKIM 
validation while passing through debian. (Note that it goes from 
DKIM_VALID to DKIM_INVALID in what looks like two subsequent checks on 
bendel.) On my system that one says that it fails dkim because the body 
was altered. Looking at the body my best guess would be that it's a 
normalization/line length issue on the part of the dkim signer, but 
without the original message that's just a guess.


Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])  
   by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP  
   id 645DA20490; Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:38:07 + (UTC)  
X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org  Sun Jun  7 17:38:07 2020   
Old-Return-Path:  
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on bendel.debian.org  
X-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=3.4.2 
X-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 ; Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:38:00 + (UTC)  
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht   
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.201 tagged_above=-1 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=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 E4EkTvek1ETa for ; 
   Sun,  7 Jun 2020 17:37:55

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)


On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:48:42PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

My email below got a DKIM issue.


It validated fine here, not a debian list issue.

[OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

2020-06-12 Thread l0f4r0

Hi,

My email below got a DKIM issue. This is not the first time for me on this ML 
so I'm trying to debug the situation with my email provider.

Does someone on this list mind forwarding to me (as an attachment please, not 
inline) his/her own specimen of my original email below please? I need 
headers+body, this will help the investigations.

NB: Please ignore this message if you are a Tutanota subscriber.

Thank you in advance & Best regards :)
l0f4r0


7 Jun 2020 19:37 from l0f...@tuta.io:

> Hi,
>
> 7 juin 2020 à 19:23 de notoneofmyse...@gmx.de:
>
>> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
>> where logic would suggest it be.
>>
> >From my side, Picard appears under Multimedia>MusicBrainz Picard.
> Here is the related desktop file (org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop):
>
> [Desktop Entry]
> Name=MusicBrainz Picard
> Comment=Tag your music with the next generation MusicBrainz tagger
> Exec=picard %F
> Terminal=false
> Type=Application
> StartupNotify=true
> StartupWMClass=MusicBrainz-Picard
> Icon=org.musicbrainz.Picard
> Categories=AudioVideo;Audio;AudioVideoEditing;
> MimeType=audio/x-mp3;audio/ogg;audio/mpeg;application/ogg;audio/x-flac;audio/x-flac+ogg;audio/x-vorbis+ogg;audio/x-speex+ogg;audio/x-oggflac;audio/x-musepack;audio/x-tta;audio/x-ms-wma;audio/x-wavpack;
>
> Best regards,
> l0f4r0
>

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-12 Thread Admin4

have you tried Alt+F2 (brings up a search menu X-D)

On 6/12/20 10:31 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:36:20 +0900
> A_Man_Without_Clue  wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/20 2:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:
>>> Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic
>>> behind how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications
>>> menu.
>>>
>>> The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester
>>> century.
>>>
>>> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
>>> where logic would suggest it be.
>>>
>>> I had to dial it up from the command line.
>>>
>>> I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with
>>> Debian.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>   
>>
>> Mine appears under "Sound & Video"
>>
>> I'm using LXDE Debian Buster.
>>
> 'Multimedia', Xfce/xfwm4 on stretch and sid. I believe this is the
> standard freedesktop menu.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-12 Thread Joe

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:36:20 +0900
A_Man_Without_Clue  wrote:

> On 6/8/20 2:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:
> > Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic
> > behind how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications
> > menu.
> > 
> > The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester
> > century.
> > 
> > I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
> > where logic would suggest it be.
> > 
> > I had to dial it up from the command line.
> > 
> > I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with
> > Debian.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot.
> >   
> 
> 
> Mine appears under "Sound & Video"
> 
> I'm using LXDE Debian Buster.
> 

'Multimedia', Xfce/xfwm4 on stretch and sid. I believe this is the
standard freedesktop menu.

-- 
Joe

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-11 Thread A_Man_Without_Clue




On 6/8/20 2:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:
> Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
> how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.
> 
> The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.
> 
> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
> where logic would suggest it be.
> 
> I had to dial it up from the command line.
> 
> I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 


Mine appears under "Sound & Video"

I'm using LXDE Debian Buster.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-11 Thread l0f4r0

Hi,

11 juin 2020 à 23:13 de notoneofmyse...@gmx.de:

> On 6/7/20 10:58 PM, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
>
>> Please just run the following commands as a simple user (no need to cd to 
>> anything):
>> * cat /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
>> * cat /usr/share/metainfo/org.musicbrainz.Picard.appdata.xml
>> * desktop-file-validate 
>> /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
>> * echo $?
>>
> Results attached. And thanks a lot!
>
I have the exact same files...
Since your issue is about the DE Applications menu, maybe you could take a 
chance with packages Alacarte or MenuLibre?

Best regards & Good luck!
l0f4r0

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-11 Thread Seeds Notoneofmy


On 6/8/20 8:20 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:


Debian does very little customization of the various Desktop
Environments, you are experiencing upstream's take on usability.

Kind regards,
Andrei

Thanks a lot, Andrei, this is very, very helpful.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-11 Thread Seeds Notoneofmy

On 6/7/20 10:58 PM, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

Please just run the following commands as a simple user (no need to cd to
anything):
* cat /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
* cat /usr/share/metainfo/org.musicbrainz.Picard.appdata.xml
* desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
* echo $?

Results attached. And thanks a lot!
cat /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
[Desktop Entry]
Name=MusicBrainz Picard
Comment=Tag your music with the next generation MusicBrainz tagger
Exec=picard %F
Terminal=false
Type=Application
StartupNotify=true
StartupWMClass=MusicBrainz-Picard
Icon=org.musicbrainz.Picard
Categories=AudioVideo;Audio;AudioVideoEditing;
MimeType=audio/x-mp3;audio/ogg;audio/mpeg;application/ogg;audio/x-flac;audio/x-flac+ogg;audio/x-vorbis+ogg;audio/x-speex+ogg;audio/x-oggflac;audio/x-musepack;audio/x-tta;audio/x-ms-wma;audio/x-wavpack;

cat /usr/share/metainfo/org.musicbrainz.Picard.appdata.xml

org.musicbrainz.Picard
GPL-2.0-or-later
CC0-1.0
Picard
Picard
Picard
Picard
פיקארד
Picard
Picard
Picard
Picard
MusicBrainz's music tagger
MusicBrainz 的音樂標籤管理程式
MusicBrainz’ muziektagger
Il tagger musicale di MusicBrainz
מתייג מוזיקה של MusicBrainz
Le baliseur de fichiers audio de MusicBrainz
MusicBrainzin musiikkitunnisteiden
hallintaohjelma
Etiquetador de música MusicBrainz
MusicBrainz Musik-Tagger

Do you need to clean up your music library? Picard is an open-source
cross-platform music tagger by MusicBrainz. It has the ability to
identify audio files even without any existing metadata.

您需要整理您的音樂收藏庫？Picard 是開放源代碼且跨平臺的音樂標籤管理程式，由 MusicBrainz
製作。就算沒有後設資料參考，它也有能力辨識音訊檔案。
Wil je je muziekbibliotheek opschonen? Picard is een
openbron muziektagger voor meerdere platformen van MusicBrainz. Het kan je
audiobestanden zelfs zonder bestaande tags identificeren.
Vuoi riordinare la tua libreria musicale? Picard è un
tagger musicale open-source e multipiattaforma di MusicBrainz. È in grado di
identificare file audio anche in assenza di metadati.
צריכים לנקות את ספריית המוזיקה שלכם? פיקארד הוא מתייג
מוזיקה בקוד פתוח, חוצת פלטפורמת על ידי MusicBrainz. בעל יכולת זיהוי קבצי שמע גם
ללא מטא נתונים קיימים.
Avez-vous besoin de nettoyer votre collection de musique ?
Picard est un baliseur de fichiers musicaux libre et multi-plateformes par
MusicBrainz. Il est capable d'identifier les fichiers audio même sans aucune
métadonnée existante.
Haluaisitko järjestää musiikkikirjastosi? Picard on
avoimen lähdekoodin alustariippumaton musiikkitunnisteiden hallintaohjelma
MusicBrainzilta. Se pystyy tunnistaamaan äänitiedostoja jopa ilman niiden
sisältämää metatietoa.
¿Necesitas ordenar tu biblioteca de música?
Picard es un etiquetador de música multiplataforma open source de MusicBrainz.
Tiene la capacidad de identificar archivos de audio incluso sin metadatos
disponibles.
Musst du deine Musik-Sammlung aufräumen? Picard ist ein
plattformübergreifender Open Source Musik-Tagger von MusicBrainz. Er kann
Audio-Dateien selbst ohne vorhandene Metadaten identifizieren.

A variety of plugins are available and you can even write your own.
Picard supports a wide range of audio formats and can also lookup an
entire CD for you.

不僅擁有豐富的套件可安裝，您也可以製作自己的套件。Picard 支援許多音訊格式，而且也可以為您查找整張
CD。
Er zijn veel plug-ins beschikbaar en je kunt ook zelf
plug-ins schrijven. Picard ondersteunt een breed scala audioformaten en kan ook
een hele cd voor je opzoeken.
Diversi plugin sono già disponibili e puoi persino crearne
di nuovi. Picard supporta una vasta gamma di formati audio e può anche cercare
un intero CD per te.
זמינים מגוון של מִתְקָעים, תוכלו אפילו לכתוב משלכם. פיקארד
תומך במגוון רחב של תבניות שמע ויכול גם לחפש תקליטור שלם.
Des greffons divers sont disponibles et vous pouvez écrire
le vôtre. Picard supporte un grand nombre de formats audio et peut aussi
rechercher un CD complet pour vous.
Picardiin on useita liitännäisiä, ja voit jopa luoda
omiakin. Picard tukee useita äänitiedostomuotoja ja pystyy etsimään myös
CD-levyn perusteella.
Picard ofrece una serie de complementos e incluso puedes
crear los tuyos. Admite una amplia gama de formatos de audio y hasta puede
buscar en un CD completo.
Es steht eine Vielzahl an Plugins zur Verfügung und du
kannst sogar deine eigenen schreiben. Picard unterstützt viele Audio-Formate
und kann auch die gesamten Daten einer CD abfragen.

Tagging audio files has never been easier.

管理音訊檔案的標籤從來沒有這麼簡單。
Het taggen van audiobestanden was nog nooit zo
makkelijk.
Taggare file audio non è mai stato così facile.
תיוג קובצי שמע מעולם לא היה קל יותר.
Baliser des fichiers audio n'a jamais été aussi facile.
Äänitiedostojen tunnisteiden hallitseminen ei ole ollut
koskaan näin helppoa.
Etiquetar archivos de música nunca ha sido tan fácil.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-08 Thread Peter Ehlert




On 6/7/20 11:20 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Du, 07 iun 20, 19:23:24, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Debian does very little customization of the various Desktop
Environments, you are experiencing upstream's take on usability.

My personal perception/observation:
the individuals that bundle the DEs configure them differently.
some are "pimped out", some are spartan, by design.

for example, the Mate DE is very spartan... a bit of effort is needed to 
make it My Way.

this is Good. less cruft, and much better for the low resource machines.


Kind regards,
Andrei

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-08 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Du, 07 iun 20, 19:23:24, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:
> Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
> how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.
> 
> The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.
> 
> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
> where logic would suggest it be.
> 
> I had to dial it up from the command line.
> 
> I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Debian does very little customization of the various Desktop 
Environments, you are experiencing upstream's take on usability.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Geoff Reidy


Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Thanks a lot.




I just hit the "windows" key and started typing, by the time I got to "pica" it 
was the only choice in the list, hit enter and up it comes. This is on KDE/Plasma.

Regards,
Geoff

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Liam O'Toole

On Sun, 07 Jun, 2020 at 20:19:48 +0200, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:
>On 6/7/20 7:52 PM, Peter Ehlert wrote:

[...]

>  What window manager/desktop suite are you using?
> 
>GNOME Metacity

That's unusual these days. Are you getting your application menu from
gnome-panel?

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Dan Ritter

Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: 
> 
> suppose. But really, it's a basic user experience need, not like trying
> to set up a server or virtual machine kind of project. :)

Those are also user experience needs. The essence of Linux is
that at any time, an ordinary user should be able to put on
their sysadmin hat or their programming hat and be able to
inspect, change, create and fix their software.

-dsr-

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Dan Ritter

Seeds Notoneofmy wrote: 
> very different. I want to imagine a world of using a stable and secure
> computer to achieve much more. Or, perhaps my frustration is influenced
> by chastisement from a friend recently, a programmer, who said; life's
> short, time is precious, why spend time getting things to work on Linux?

For one thing, when you make a fix to Linux, everybody else can
get the benefits, too.

This mailing list is a living archive of answers, plus a bunch
of people who are willing to answer questions where they can --
and then those answers are archived and available to help future
people.

-dsr-

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

Hi,

7 juin 2020 à 19:23 de notoneofmyse...@gmx.de:

> I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
> where logic would suggest it be.
>
>From my side, Picard appears under Multimedia>MusicBrainz Picard.
Here is the related desktop file (org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop):

[Desktop Entry]
Name=MusicBrainz Picard
Comment=Tag your music with the next generation MusicBrainz tagger
Exec=picard %F
Terminal=false
Type=Application
StartupNotify=true
StartupWMClass=MusicBrainz-Picard
Icon=org.musicbrainz.Picard
Categories=AudioVideo;Audio;AudioVideoEditing;
MimeType=audio/x-mp3;audio/ogg;audio/mpeg;application/ogg;audio/x-flac;audio/x-flac+ogg;audio/x-vorbis+ogg;audio/x-speex+ogg;audio/x-oggflac;audio/x-musepack;audio/x-tta;audio/x-ms-wma;audio/x-wavpack;

Best regards,
l0f4r0

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

Hi,

7 juin 2020 à 22:03 de notoneofmyse...@gmx.de:

> Thanks for your help. Please see above. To be sure, I'm running as
> 'root.' Should I log into 'regular' user and do these again?
>
Please just run the following commands as a simple user (no need to cd to 
anything):
* cat /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
* cat /usr/share/metainfo/org.musicbrainz.Picard.appdata.xml
* desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
* echo $?

Best regards,
l0f4r0

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list




On 6/7/20 10:22 PM, Marco Möller wrote:

I am surprised about Ubuntu in your experience not being as stable and
secure as Debian. While Debian is a philosophy and developing an
extremely good OS, Ubuntu builds on top of it. Substituting philosophy
by commercial interests

and that's when I left, (14)04) when they thought it wise to  lace
commercial products into the OS. It was a breach of privacy and trust. I
will never return to Ubuntu. Never

Ubuntu then provides enhancements which the voluntary submission in
Debian could not achieve. Some of the enhancements are security
related, for instance, Apparmor support of Ubuntu is worth mentioning.

Great. They made a mistake that breached trust. That's it for me.


Marco.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list


On 6/7/20 9:33 PM, Joe wrote:


Wouldn't that be something like Android? Where the user no longer owns
his computer, and therefore cannot break it, where there is one and
only one minimally-customisable user interface, where only software
approved by the OS vendor is available where the software probably
wouldn't be open source, as there would be no point

My comments were not about software access or users' 'right to brake a
computer.' It was simply to be able to install and use an application. I
don't think having the ability to install and use an application without
resorting to kung-fu Linux is asking too much.


I have an Android phone and tablet, and I absolutely hate the OS. It is
such incredibly hard work to do anything that the masses don't
routinely want to do. I managed to find a web server that would
interface with a PHP server, and there's a version of MariaDB
available. But I couldn't get them all running for more that a few
seconds. To achieve that, I'd have had to use a third-party rooting
tool, which might contain anything, to adjust the OS running parameters
to allow three serious applications to run together. I used to run all
that stuff on a PC, and much more, with fewer resources than this
tablet. I've been spoilt by Debian.

This 'the masses' vs. 'the elite' narrative is not useful here. But if I
must follow your comments; masses or not, computer has to be functional.
We disagree on how to make it so. I think that Debian allows for much
more than Android (which was not my point of reference) is great. I
think that you can today install something like Picard on Debian and
cannot find it to use it, is, well, not so. Again, I'm not wanting to
install and configure a virtual machine, only a simple, to my mind,
application like Picard.


Let's face it, Android is a media appliance, and that's what the masses
want. That's probably where Ubuntu will end up. It's where your stable
OS with a great user experience would end up, because that's the
user experience that the masses want. It's not what I want from a
computer.


I think I've responded to this 'masses' narrative. But I will add; why
not work to bring a much more stable and secure OS, such as Debian, to
the 'masses'? That will be a dire public service need fulfilled. Among
your 'masses' I do not think there you will find a soul who prefers to
have a virus infested Windows machine. Or, one that forces them to buy a
new hardware ever so often, as OSX.

Though, now I add, with the fast growth of 64 bit computing, that leaves
many an old machine useless, such as will not install latest versions of
Firefox, Tor, Thunderbird, etc, this too is not a great mark on the
Linux world. I got into Linux when the pitch was: an operating system
that will run on your old computer that Microsoft will no longer
support. That line has since been lost in the Linux world. And sadly so.
Once an OS with potential to reduce e-waste, now a contributor, except
of course, if you have a life to waste trying to find and get old
applications to run on 32 bit systems. BTW, OSX has such a website
devoted to PPC apps. Does this exist in the Linux world?

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Marco Möller


On 07.06.20 19:54, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:
(...) 
And I will add, it was never 
the ambition of Debian to replace the User experience with Windows or 
OSX, unlike Ubuntu and many others. I've stuck with Debian for what I 
cannot find in Ubuntu; stability and security. But user experience is 
well below compared to other distros. It's unfortunate, then it seems, 
that Linux seems destined for the geek world. This is rather 
unfortunate, as I do believe with Linux the computing world could be 
very different. I want to imagine a world of using a stable and secure 
computer to achieve much more.

> (...)

I am surprised about Ubuntu in your experience not being as stable and 
secure as Debian. While Debian is a philosophy and developing an 
extremely good OS, Ubuntu builds on top of it. Substituting philosophy 
by commercial interests Ubuntu then provides enhancements which the 
voluntary submission in Debian could not achieve. Some of the 
enhancements are security related, for instance, Apparmor support of 
Ubuntu is worth mentioning.

Marco.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list




On 6/7/20 9:24 PM, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

OK, just to be sure, can you please copy/paste in 2 text files the content of:
* /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
* /usr/share/metainfo/org.musicbrainz.Picard.appdata.xml

xscreensaver-properties.desktop
yelp.desktop
zulucrypt-gui.desktop
root@bruda:/usr/share/applications# cd org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
bash: cd: org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop: Not a directory
root@bruda:/usr#

and

root@bruda:/usr# /usr/share/metainfo/
bash: /usr/share/metainfo/: Is a directory
root@bruda:/usr#



+ give us the output for:
desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop

root@bruda:/usr# /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
bash: /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop: Permission
denied
root@bruda:/usr#



Best regards,
l0f4r0

Thanks for your help. Please see above. To be sure, I'm running as
'root.' Should I log into 'regular' user and do these again?

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Joe

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 19:54:07 +0200
Seeds Notoneofmy  wrote:

> I've stuck with Debian
> for what I cannot find in Ubuntu; stability and security. But user
> experience is well below compared to other distros. It's unfortunate,
> then it seems, that Linux seems destined for the geek world. This is
> rather unfortunate, as I do believe with Linux the computing world
> could be very different. I want to imagine a world of using a stable
> and secure computer to achieve much more.

Wouldn't that be something like Android? Where the user no longer owns
his computer, and therefore cannot break it, where there is one and
only one minimally-customisable user interface, where only software
approved by the OS vendor is available where the software probably
wouldn't be open source, as there would be no point

I have an Android phone and tablet, and I absolutely hate the OS. It is
such incredibly hard work to do anything that the masses don't
routinely want to do. I managed to find a web server that would
interface with a PHP server, and there's a version of MariaDB
available. But I couldn't get them all running for more that a few
seconds. To achieve that, I'd have had to use a third-party rooting
tool, which might contain anything, to adjust the OS running parameters
to allow three serious applications to run together. I used to run all
that stuff on a PC, and much more, with fewer resources than this
tablet. I've been spoilt by Debian.

Let's face it, Android is a media appliance, and that's what the masses
want. That's probably where Ubuntu will end up. It's where your stable
OS with a great user experience would end up, because that's the
user experience that the masses want. It's not what I want from a
computer.

-- 
Joe

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

OK, just to be sure, can you please copy/paste in 2 text files the content of:
* /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop
* /usr/share/metainfo/org.musicbrainz.Picard.appdata.xml

+ give us the output for:
desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop

Best regards,
l0f4r0

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list



On 6/7/20 8:48 PM, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

What is your output of:
dpkg -L picard


Are you sure you want it, it's pretty long. I've made a text document of it.

It's attached, all 8 pages of it. (.odt)

Thanks for asking and helping.



picard_issues.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

What is your output of:
dpkg -L picard

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list



On 6/7/20 7:52 PM, Peter Ehlert wrote:


On 6/7/20 10:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

What window manager/desktop suite are you using?

GNOME Metacity


(those developers/maintainers would know why they don't care to
accommodate your software)


I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Thanks a lot.


Thanks for asking. And sorry for not mentioning. Easier to complain, I
suppose. But really, it's a basic user experience need, not like trying
to set up a server or virtual machine kind of project. :)

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Peter Ehlert




On 6/7/20 10:23 AM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

What window manager/desktop suite are you using?

(those developers/maintainers would know why they don't care to 
accommodate your software)


I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Thanks a lot.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list


On 6/7/20 7:37 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:


On 06/07/2020 12:23 PM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Thanks a lot.


That is an easy question.
The majority of labor to improve Debian is free.
The issues that are worked on are those the free labor is interested in.


Thanks for this insight. And you're right. And I will add, it was never
the ambition of Debian to replace the User experience with Windows or
OSX, unlike Ubuntu and many others. I've stuck with Debian for what I
cannot find in Ubuntu; stability and security. But user experience is
well below compared to other distros. It's unfortunate, then it seems,
that Linux seems destined for the geek world. This is rather
unfortunate, as I do believe with Linux the computing world could be
very different. I want to imagine a world of using a stable and secure
computer to achieve much more. Or, perhaps my frustration is influenced
by chastisement from a friend recently, a programmer, who said; life's
short, time is precious, why spend time getting things to work on Linux?
This was again, in response to a user experience, trying to share our
desktops remotely. Of course, we gave up. It did not work. And I do
believe it was because of my Buster, bursting its way, all the way.

Thanks, however.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list


On 6/7/20 7:37 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:


On 06/07/2020 12:23 PM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Thanks a lot.


That is an easy question.
The majority of labor to improve Debian is free.
The issues that are worked on are those the free labor is interested in.


Thanks for this insight. And you're right. And I will add, it was never
the ambition of Debian to replace the User experience with Windows or
OSX, unlike Ubuntu and many others. I've stuck with Debian for what I
cannot find in Ubuntu; stability and security. But user experience is
well below compared to other distros. It's unfortunate, then it seems,
that Linux seems destined for the geek world. This is rather
unfortunate, as I do believe with Linux the computing world could be
very different. I want to imagine a world of using a stable and secure
computer to achieve much more. Or, perhaps my frustration is influenced
by chastisement from a friend recently, a programmer, who said; life's
short, time is precious, why spend time getting things to work on Linux?
This was again, in response to a user experience, trying to share out
desktop remotely. Of course, we gave up.

Thanks, however.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list


On 6/7/20 7:37 PM, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:


 From my side, Picard appears under Multimedia>MusicBrainz Picard.
Here is the related desktop file (org.musicbrainz.Picard.desktop):


Thanks a lot. But I do not have 'Multimedia,' instead Applications >
Sound & Video

Thanks.

Re: why !oh why Debian and application list

2020-06-07 Thread Richard Owlett


On 06/07/2020 12:23 PM, Seeds Notoneofmy wrote:

Well, as the subject suggests, I'm a bit fed up with the logic behind
how installed programs are sorted out in the Applications menu.

The need to go hunt down an installed application seems yester century.

I just installed Picard, and it does not show up in Sound and Video,
where logic would suggest it be.

I had to dial it up from the command line.

I'm willing and ready to be educated on why things are such with Debian.

Thanks a lot.


That is an easy question.
The majority of labor to improve Debian is free.
The issues that are worked on are those the free labor is interested in.

why !oh why Debian and application list