Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users (Mo 18 Nov 2019 17:38:41 CST): > On 18/11/2019 05:05, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote: > > Ok, considering the importance of the information, @Jeremy, > > how big is the risk of braking anything, if we extend the default header > > information to include the

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-18 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:13:47PM +0100, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote: > BTW: I always missed exims default level of detailed loginformations > when i had to work with other mailservers ;) If there's something missing from Postfix logging, please feel free to drop me a note off-list. -- Vik

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-18 Thread Cyborg via Exim-users
Am 18.11.19 um 10:38 schrieb Jeremy Harris via Exim-users: > On 18/11/2019 05:05, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote: >> Ok, considering the importance of the information, @Jeremy, >> how big is the risk of braking anything, if we extend the default header >> information to include the TLS ve

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-18 Thread Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
On 18/11/2019 05:05, Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users wrote: > Ok, considering the importance of the information, @Jeremy, > how big is the risk of braking anything, if we extend the default header > information to include the TLS version? If I understood well, it was > there before, but is missi

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-17 Thread Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users (So 17 Nov 2019 21:23:47 CST): > Surely choosing implies not using the default? Which is possible, just > by setting received_header_text to your choice. > > 4.next adds a (TLS1.x) comment to the default; we're too late > in the release cycle to change the upcoming r

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-17 Thread Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users
On 17/11/2019 14:23, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote: > Surely choosing implies not using the default? Which is possible, just > by setting received_header_text to your choice. Sure I can change it for all Exims I'm responsible for. But what I meant was that I can't choose it for all the Exims

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-17 Thread Cyborg via Exim-users
Am 17.11.19 um 14:24 schrieb Jeremy Harris via Exim-users: > On 14/11/2019 00:10, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote: >> Also, the data protection agencies in Germany have gained vital knowlage >> about tls usage via those >> brilliant logfiles of exim. > There's a difference between logfiles and Received

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-17 Thread Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
On 13/11/2019 17:27, Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users wrote: > And that's nothing I can choose locally for all running Exims using defaults. Surely choosing implies not using the default? Which is possible, just by setting received_header_text to your choice. 4.next adds a (TLS1.x) comment to the

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-17 Thread Jeremy Harris via Exim-users
On 14/11/2019 00:10, Cyborg via Exim-users wrote: > Also, the data protection agencies in Germany have gained vital knowlage > about tls usage via those > brilliant logfiles of exim. There's a difference between logfiles and Received: headers. -- Cheers, Jeremy -- ## List details at https://l

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-13 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Cyborg via Exim-users > wrote: > > It would be better to change the rfc and make it mandatory to log the > version and cipher used ;) There's no IETF RFC police. MTAs will log what their developers and administrators conspire to log. So there's no "mandatory", b

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-13 Thread Cyborg via Exim-users
Am 13.11.19 um 18:27 schrieb Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users: > I think it's no good idea to change the default in favor of that RFC while > dropping important information like the TLS Version used. > Those informations are vital to make checks for contacts, using old and broken tls versions. With

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-13 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users > wrote: > >> I agree that the new format is inadequate, especially for TLS 1.3. >> In Postfix I've kept, and even expanded the "comment" form of the >> TLS trace info. For example: > > Do you know of any proposed improvements to RF

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-13 Thread Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users
On 13/11/2019 18:46, Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users wrote: > I agree that the new format is inadequate, especially for TLS 1.3. > In Postfix I've kept, and even expanded the "comment" form of the > TLS trace info. For example: Do you know of any proposed improvements to RFC 8314? I did not find a

Re: [exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-13 Thread Viktor Dukhovni via Exim-users
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 06:27:42PM +0100, Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users wrote: > While testing 4.93-RCx I recognized that it uses a new default for Received: > headers including TLS information as RFC 8314 defines it using > by with esmtps tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 > instead of > by with

[exim] Exim 4.93 Received Header tls clause

2019-11-13 Thread Wolfgang Breyha via Exim-users
Hi! While testing 4.93-RCx I recognized that it uses a new default for Received: headers including TLS information as RFC 8314 defines it using by with esmtps tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 instead of by with esmtps (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) Am I the only one missing the TLS Version