Am Mittwoch, 5. Juni 2024, 05:00:31 CEST schrieb Marco Moock via mailop:
> Is there a reason that this is not mentioned on the homepage?
It is curious to see / read nothing about a/that closure over the SORBS
project primary / "official" website...
Is there some official note to expect?
cheers,
Hi everyone!
I got a few suspicious emails from a user.
I wanted to check the DKIM Signature of that domain to validate the ownership
but the emails are coming from Microsoft, which signs the email using "{domain
name}[.onmicrosoft.com](http://aotearoaenergy.onmicrosoft.com)"
In my case, the sen
On 5 June 2024 08:57:38 Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
All of this because Microsoft is unable to properly sign an email with the
sender's domain to prove ownership...
All of that because the tenant administrator hasn't set up the Exchange
Online service to sign outbound with their own do
It appears that Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop said:
>Now, I wonder. Can I trust Microsoft that if they send an email on behalf of
>aotearoa.energy, they initially
>validated the ownership or is there a way to bypass that?
tl;dr It's self service with, as far as I can tell, no validation at all.
According to Tobias Fiebig via mailop :
>Moin,
>
>to share some closure on this with the rest of the list; What was
>ultimately the issue was an RFC8616 based DKIM-Signature header, i.e.,
>containing UTF-8 encoded fields (in this case, even though there were
>no non-ascii characters in them). ...
Hear, hear!
SORBS is (was?) one of the best DNS-based blacklists, because they
provided reports with information on the listings.
Thank you Michelle, and all the best for your future endeavors.
Regards
Bastiaan
Am 05.06.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Michael Wise via mailop:
What He Said.
The data
Hello John,
> If you're not sending SMTPUTF8 mail, the DKIM signature headers
> should be ASCII with no encoding needed. But if you are ending
> SMTPUTF8 mail, you can put UTF-8 directly in the header and it
> doesn't need any futher encoding either.
Yeah, even more odd, the actual data did not
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
If we don't find a way out of this soon, I'm gonna lose it. Lose it... It means
go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of ones faculties, three
fries short of a Happy Meal, wacko!
> On 5 Jun 2024, at 18:40, Hetzner Blacklist via mailop
>
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
If you're not sending SMTPUTF8 mail, the DKIM signature headers
should be ASCII with no encoding needed. But if you are ending
SMTPUTF8 mail, you can put UTF-8 directly in the header and it
doesn't need any futher encoding either.
Yeah, even more odd, th
Moin,
> I wouldn't verify that either. It's just wrong. You're not allowed
> to MIME encode strings in a DKIM-Signature header.*
Yeah, I misread 8616 there, then; My brain somewhat autoclicked to
"well, if there can be UTF8 you must be able to mime encode."
> * - I'm pretty sure that if you a
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:08:31AM +0200, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
> Yeah, I misread 8616 there, then; My brain somewhat autoclicked to
> "well, if there can be UTF8 you must be able to mime encode."
No, RFC2047 encoding of headers applies only to header parts that are an
ABNF *phrase* in
Dňa 5. 6. o 11:00 John R Levine via mailop napísal(a):
I wouldn't verify that either. It's just wrong. You're not allowed to
MIME encode strings in a DKIM-Signature header.*
I don't argue, i am just curious, as i never think about it yet.
Do you want to tell, that if d= and/or s= tags contai
It appears that Slavko via mailop said:
>Do you want to tell, that if d= and/or s= tags contains
>internationalized domain name/label, it must be in A-label (ASCII
>encoded) form? Or how it is supposed to be handled please?
See RFC 8616. That is precisely what it is about.
R's,
John
_
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:30:27AM +0200, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Do you want to tell, that if d= and/or s= tags contains internationalized
> domain name/label, it must be in A-label (ASCII encoded) form? Or how it is
> supposed to be handled please?
For maximal simplicity and robustness use t
It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said:
>Well, that would then be rspamd and the python email parser; Question
>is whether that would qualify as a bug, i.e., 'should not validate'; My
>understanding would be more in a 'be liberal in what you accept and
>conservative and what you send'-sense
Dňa 5. júna 2024 9:49:11 UTC používateľ Viktor Dukhovni via mailop
napísal:
>For maximal simplicity and robustness use the same encoding of domain
>names (U-labels or A-labels) in "d=" and "i=" as you do (or would, if
>there was "alignment") in "From:".
Thanks to both, i think i got it now.
re
Moin,
> In this case, if DKIM validators correctly rejected the invalid
> signatures, this mistake would have been caught and fixed more
> quickly.
So, back to the initial question: Would it make sense if i'd file a bug
against rspamd?
With best regards,
Tobias
--
Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig
T +31 61
It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said:
>Moin,
>> In this case, if DKIM validators correctly rejected the invalid
>> signatures, this mistake would have been caught and fixed more
>> quickly.
>So, back to the initial question: Would it make sense if i'd file a bug
>against rspamd?
Sure. S
On 05.06.2024 at 09:48 Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
> I got a few suspicious emails from a user.
> I wanted to check the DKIM Signature of that domain to validate the ownership
> but the emails are coming from Microsoft, which signs the email using
> "{domain name}http://aotearoaenergy.onm
Thank you all for your input.
@Graeme, I'd join @John on this; if Microsoft can validate a domain DNS, they
should make it mandatory to sign using the domain name and not some
unverifiable *.onmicrosoft.com.
Nowadays even more when you want to have domain alignment with DMARC.
@Olivier, your i
On 05/06/2024 10:25, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:08:31AM +0200, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
Yeah, I misread 8616 there, then; My brain somewhat autoclicked to
"well, if there can be UTF8 you must be able to mime encode."
No, RFC2047 encoding of headers app
On 5 Jun 2024, at 13:56, Cyril - ImprovMX via mailop wrote:
> @Graeme, I'd join @John on this; if Microsoft can validate a domain DNS, they
> should make it mandatory to sign using the domain name and not some
> unverifiable *.onmicrosoft.com.
> Nowadays even more when you want to have domain al
Am 05.06.2024 um 18:49 schrieb Graeme Fowler via mailop:
PS I’m definitely on the hate side today, having discovered that to actually
_use_ MS’s implementation of DKIM, I may well have to shell out a 6 figure GBP
sum. If anyone can demonstrate to me that outbound DKIM signing in Exchange
Onlin
> PS I’m definitely on the hate side today, having discovered that to actually
> _use_ MS’s implementation of DKIM, I may well have to shell out a 6 figure
> GBP sum. If anyone can demonstrate to me that outbound DKIM signing in
> Exchange Online Protection is possible, and working, without any
On 6/5/24 11:49 AM, Graeme Fowler via mailop wrote:
As we all know, SMTP ain’t actually simple at all. Sigh.
I'll argue that SMTP is still simple.
Rather the language (protocol) that is spoken and the grammar (rules) of
how to speak SMTP are simple.
The language (protocol) is entirely sepa
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:29:16PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
> In fact, the original distinction between structured and unstructured
> headers defined in the RFC2047 just makes parsing extremely complicated and
> I personally consider it as an example of a standard being accepted w
Day 3 - still no response from icloudad...@apple.com.
Guessing there's nobody from Apple or iCloud is on this list.
And nobody at Apple/iCloud really cares.
favicon.ico
Description: Binary data
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.ma
What address did you send it from? We don’t seem to see any email from your
address so can you please resend it.
--srs
From: mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via mailop
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 8:41:14 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Apple/
On 6/5/2024 1:48 PM, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
I'll argue that SMTP is still simple.
Rather the language (protocol) that is spoken and the grammar (rules)
of how to speak SMTP are simple.
The language (protocol) is entirely separate from what is said using
said language (protocol).
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:43 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> What address did you send it from? We don’t seem to see any email from
> your address so can you please resend it.
>
>
> --srs
>
postmas...@olympic.wznoc.com
The apple.com mail server doesn't return any traceable message id upon
me
I will have the team check
--srs
From: mailop on behalf of Scott Mutter via mailop
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 11:02:03 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Apple/iCloud message blocking
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:43 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian
mailt
My message sent to icloud was lost siliently. Neither returned message nor
message in icloud inbox/spam.
I can provide the sender and other recipient details, and/or mail.log.
Can I write to this email icloudad...@apple.com as well?
Thanks.
>
> Day 3 - still no response from icloudad...@apple.
32 matches
Mail list logo
