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

On Tue 16 Jun 2020 at 21:28:11 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > 16 juin 2020 16:30 de deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk: > > > It might be easier for people to follow the substance of this thread > > if you posted in such a way as to include one simple self-descriptive > > test in each post, and not

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

On 18/06/20 8:08 am, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:02:11AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: >> > See for more details. > >> I understand the phenomenon. I don't understand why modern software (eg >> the list software) still does it. >

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

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:02:11AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > > See for more details. > I understand the phenomenon. I don't understand why modern software (eg > the list software) still does it. Well, imagine you're a mailing list. A dozen

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

On 15/06/20 11:44 pm, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:13:11AM -0500, David Wright wrote: >> On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: >> > However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, >> > no? >> >> How would the viewer's email

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

Hi. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 02:06:08PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > Hi, > > 13 juin 2020 à 21:14 de recovery...@enotuniq.net: > > > 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

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

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:28:11PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > Hi, > > 16 juin 2020 14:50 de recovery...@enotuniq.net: > > > And *now* it gets interesting. Because what's came to the list was text: > > > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding:

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

Hi, 16 juin 2020 14:50 de recovery...@enotuniq.net: > And *now* it gets interesting. Because what's came to the list was text: > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Can we imagine that the ML simply 64-decodes the email and

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

On Tue 16 Jun 2020 at 13:10:38 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > 13 juin 2020 à 21:05 de recovery...@enotuniq.net: > > 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:

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

Hi. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:10:38PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > > Your e-mail passed DKIM test on my MTA with flying colors. > > > > Try that base64-encoded html thing next. > > > It was already base64 encoded, see below: > > --79Bu5A16qPEYcVIZL@tutanota > Content-Type:

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

Hi, 13 juin 2020 à 21:05 de recovery...@enotuniq.net: > 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

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

Hi, 13 juin 2020 à 21:14 de recovery...@enotuniq.net: > 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

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

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:13:11AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > > However, this extra ">" should have been deleted upon viewing the email, no? > > How would the viewer's email client know whether the > in > >From had been added by

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

On Sat 13 Jun 2020 at 16:05:17 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote: > 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 >

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

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

Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: 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;

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)

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

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

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 ">". > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. >

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

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

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

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

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)"

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

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 > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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)

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