On 02/22/18 15:56, David Jones wrote:
> On 02/22/2018 08:52 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> Giovanni Bechis skrev den 2018-02-22 15:39:
>>
sub check_dkim_valid {
my ($self, $pms, $full_ref, @acceptable_domains) = @_;
$self->_check_dkim_signature($pms) if
On 02/22/2018 08:52 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Giovanni Bechis skrev den 2018-02-22 15:39:
sub check_dkim_valid {
my ($self, $pms, $full_ref, @acceptable_domains) = @_;
$self->_check_dkim_signature($pms) if
!$pms->{dkim_checked_signature};
my $result = 0;
if (!$pms->{dkim_valid}) {
Giovanni Bechis skrev den 2018-02-22 15:39:
sub check_dkim_valid {
my ($self, $pms, $full_ref, @acceptable_domains) = @_;
$self->_check_dkim_signature($pms) if
!$pms->{dkim_checked_signature};
my $result = 0;
if (!$pms->{dkim_valid}) {
# don't bother
} elsif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/22/18 15:34, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Benny Pedersen skrev den 2018-02-21 17:55:
>> David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 17:41:
>>
>>> I have that same code in my DKIM.pm and I am running 3.4.1. Maybe the
>>> size acceptable for whitelisting is
Benny Pedersen skrev den 2018-02-21 17:55:
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 17:41:
I have that same code in my DKIM.pm and I am running 3.4.1. Maybe the
size acceptable for whitelisting is different from the DKIM_VALID
check?
minimal key bits could be a plugin test yes, but imho it never
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 17:41:
I have that same code in my DKIM.pm and I am running 3.4.1. Maybe the
size acceptable for whitelisting is different from the DKIM_VALID
check?
minimal key bits could be a plugin test yes, but imho it never made to
do this
Does the check_dkim_valid
On 02/21/2018 10:22 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 15:46:
Bug 7559 opened. I don't want to delay 3.4.2 either. I don't think
this is major enough to have to go into 3.4.2 unless someone can
provide a quick patch for Kevin.
in dkim.pm plugin i find
# minimal
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 15:46:
Bug 7559 opened. I don't want to delay 3.4.2 either. I don't think
this is major enough to have to go into 3.4.2 unless someone can
provide a quick patch for Kevin.
in dkim.pm plugin i find
# minimal signing key size in bits that is acceptable for
On 02/21/18 00:24, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 00:14:
>
>> https://pastebin.com/mjvB0MKg (scored 10.96)
>> -0.10 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
>
> Authentication-Results: smtp3i.ena.net;
> dkim=policy reason="signing key
On 02/21/2018 08:30 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2018-02-21 14:44:
On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, David Jones wrote:
Do we need to open a bug to get SA's DKIM code to check for a minimum
key size?
When in doubt, open a bug.
more bugs will delay 3.4.2 :=)
Bug 7559 opened.
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2018-02-21 14:44:
On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, David Jones wrote:
Do we need to open a bug to get SA's DKIM code to check for a minimum
key size?
When in doubt, open a bug.
more bugs will delay 3.4.2 :=)
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 14:42:
My guess is SA's DKIM check doesn't care about the size of the key.
OpenDKIM has a setting of "MinimumKeyBits 1024" since anything smaller
can be trivially cracked.
Do we need to open a bug to get SA's DKIM code to check for a minimum
key size?
yes
On 21-02-18 14:54, David Jones wrote:
> On 02/21/2018 07:44 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, David Jones wrote:
>>> Do we need to open a bug to get SA's DKIM code to check for a minimum
>>> key size?
>>
>> When in doubt, open a bug.
>>
>
> Well. Ummm. I found this when
On 02/21/2018 07:44 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, David Jones wrote:
Do we need to open a bug to get SA's DKIM code to check for a minimum
key size?
When in doubt, open a bug.
Well. Ummm. I found this when starting to create the bug:
On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, David Jones wrote:
Do we need to open a bug to get SA's DKIM code to check for a minimum
key size?
When in doubt, open a bug.
On 02/20/2018 05:24 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 00:14:
https://pastebin.com/mjvB0MKg (scored 10.96)
-0.10 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK
signature
Authentication-Results: smtp3i.ena.net;
dkim=policy reason="signing key too
On 20 Feb 2018, at 16:48, David Jones wrote:
It doesn't seem like a good idea for whitelists to list these senders
just because most of the email is ham.
I can see no evidence for that in a quick check of my personal mail. In
10 years:
68 messages
50 spam (all reported)
6 replies to spam
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-21 00:14:
https://pastebin.com/mjvB0MKg (scored 10.96)
-0.10 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
Authentication-Results: smtp3i.ena.net;
dkim=policy reason="signing key too small" (768-bit key)
header.d=mails-express.com
On 02/20/2018 04:08 PM, David Jones wrote:
On 02/20/2018 03:48 PM, David Jones wrote:
On 02/20/2018 12:57 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/20/2018 1:53 PM, David Jones wrote:
Over the years I have noticed junk/spam email coming from these
servers so I created this rule:
header
David Jones skrev den 2018-02-20 23:08:
That is ridiculous!!! It requires 8 DNS queries and shouldn't include
Google's servers.
+1
v=spf1 ip4:23.83.208.1/20 ip4:23.91.112.0/20 ip4:46.232.183.0/24
ip4:50.87.152.0/21 ip4:50.116.64.0/18 ip4:64.233.160.0/19
ip4:66.102.0.0/20
On 02/20/2018 03:48 PM, David Jones wrote:
On 02/20/2018 12:57 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/20/2018 1:53 PM, David Jones wrote:
Over the years I have noticed junk/spam email coming from these
servers so I created this rule:
header ENA_RCVD_NOTRUST Received =~
On 02/20/2018 12:57 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/20/2018 1:53 PM, David Jones wrote:
Over the years I have noticed junk/spam email coming from these
servers so I created this rule:
header ENA_RCVD_NOTRUST Received =~
Over the years I have noticed junk/spam email coming from these servers
so I created this rule:
header ENA_RCVD_NOTRUSTReceived =~
23 matches
Mail list logo
