Further investigation showed that the issue is in Python 2.7’s `email` module.
Although this is out of support, I’d expect some to be lying around and thought
it worth mentioning to this group. Specifically, `email.Message.__str__()`. It
seems ok in python3
> On 2 May 2024, at 12:53,
I think that I’ve now fixed this in my domain, so I thought I’d just note the
route to finding it, more as a comment on the complexity of working out what’s
going on.
After making a simple robot to send emails with long headers and demonstrating
how they broke in my production environment, I
ent in a browser does have
an extra , but no .
I clearly need to do several more experiments to work out what is going on.
It’s non-trivial when you control so little of the whole chain.
Tim
> On 29 Apr 2024, at 17:48, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
> Tim Coote via Postfix-
I mostly agree - I’ve been using Postfix for a long while now. But something is
folding headers in my domain and failing DKIM that don’t get folded by gmail
and which, if I manually unfold and remove the extra space do get signature
agreement.
Here’s an example:
List-Unsubscribe:
Hullo
I’ve recently stumbled across this issue and wondered if it’s a/ common, b/ how
it can be addressed.
SMTP headers are often ‘folded’ as they flow through MTAs. The standard
approach to folding and unfolding is covered in rfcs 5322 and is relied on in
6377 (DKIM). Message signing (DKIM)
>>
>> Before I pollute the mailing list with all the gory details. Is this a
>> known/expected/ever seen behaviour?
>
> SRS rewriting should not operate on ANY header addresses. It is designed,
> like SPF, to operate on the SMTP envelope sender.
>
> It is normal for automated messages such as
Hullo
I’ve been running my email domain using postfix for most, possibly all of this
century. Recently, I’ve had to add in the SPF/DMARC capabilities, and postsrsd
to rewrite the return addresses of forwarded email. I do have a number of users
who forward using the Unix ~/.forward mechanism.
that someone can help.
Tim
On 4 Aug 2009, at 01:41, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009, Tim Coote wrote:
You've been using Postfix long enough to include 'postconf -n' and
the other
information as outlined in DEBUG_README. :-)
Fair point. I'd hoped it was easier than that. See below
