post...@ptld.com:
> I know this is minor, just bringing it to light if Wietse feels
> it is worth doing something about. I noticed on emails with encoded
> subject lines an extra character is being inserted into the logs.
Postfix (and Postfix logging) does not alter subject lines. You
configure
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 05:23:26PM -0400, post...@ptld.com wrote:
> I know this is minor, just bringing it to light if Wietse feels it is worth
> doing something about.
> I noticed on emails with encoded subject lines an extra character is being
> inserted into the logs.
> EMAIL HEADER
> Subject
On 08-26-2022 3:25 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
post...@ptld.com:
I know this is minor, just bringing it to light if Wietse feels
it is worth doing something about. I noticed on emails with encoded
subject lines an extra character is being inserted into the logs.
Postfix (and Postfix logging) does
EMAIL HEADER
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?8J+YsSBTSE9QIE5PVzogR2V0IDAlIElOVEVSRVNUIERlYWxzIHBs?=
=?UTF-8?B?dXMgZXhjbHVzaXZlIHZvdWNoZXJzIHdpdGggU1BheUxhdGVyISDwn5GJ?=
SIDE BY SIDE COMPARE
=?UTF-8?B?8J+YsSBTSE9QIE5PVzogR2V0IDAlIElOVEVSRVNUIERlYWxzIHBs?=
=?UTF-8?B?dXMgZXhjbHVzaXZlIHZvdWNoZXJzIHdpdGggU1BheUx
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022, post...@ptld.com wrote:
EMAIL HEADER
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?8J+YsSBTSE9QIE5PVzogR2V0IDAlIElOVEVSRVNUIERlYWxzIHBs?=
=?UTF-8?B?dXMgZXhjbHVzaXZlIHZvdWNoZXJzIHdpdGggU1BheUxhdGVyISDwn5GJ?=
SIDE BY SIDE COMPARE
=?UTF-8?B?8J+YsSBTSE9QIE5PVzogR2V0IDAlIElOVEVSRVNUIERlYWxzIHBs?=
=
Check RFC5322, section 2.2.1 "Unstructured Header Field Bodies".
Semantically, unstructured field bodies are simply to be treated as a
single line of characters with no further processing (except for
"folding" and "unfolding" as described in section 2.2.3).
where 2.2.3 ("Long Header Fields"
MTA-STS seems to be getting more widespread. I wondered how many people are
using the postfix-mta-sts-resolver from Snawoot, and whether there are any
standout good/bad features of it? Or whether there are any other ways of
implementing MTA-STS with postfix?
Paul
On 08-26-2022 10:08 am, Paul Kingsnorth wrote:
MTA-STS seems to be getting more widespread. I wondered how many people are
using the postfix-mta-sts-resolver from Snawoot, and whether there are any
standout good/bad features of it? Or whether there are any other ways of
implementing MTA-STS wit
On 8/26/2022 7:43 AM, post...@ptld.com wrote:
On 08-26-2022 3:25 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
post...@ptld.com:
I know this is minor, just bringing it to light if Wietse feels
it is worth doing something about. I noticed on emails with encoded
subject lines an extra character is being inserted into
Le 26/08/2022 à 15:52, post...@ptld.com a écrit :
Check RFC5322, section 2.2.1 "Unstructured Header Field Bodies".
Semantically, unstructured field bodies are simply to be treated as a
single line of characters with no further processing (except for
"folding" and "unfolding" as described in
Le 26/08/2022 à 16:54, Emmanuel Fusté a écrit :
Le 26/08/2022 à 15:52, post...@ptld.com a écrit :
Check RFC5322, section 2.2.1 "Unstructured Header Field Bodies".
Semantically, unstructured field bodies are simply to be treated as a
single line of characters with no further processing (excep
is telling logging to add the '?' at the line break.
Unprintable characters are replaced with "?"
I understand that concept. The only part that leaves me confused is where did
an unprintable character come from and how can you tell there was an
unprintable character in the subject line to b
I definitely suggest to look into RFC 7672 SMTP-DANE instead of MTA-STS.
SMTP-DANE is more secure than MTA-STS, and in my "samples" also more widely
adopted than MTA-STS. In my view, MTA-STS is only interesting if you do not
want to adopt DNSSEC.
Postfix supports DANE out of the box, but you hav
What you're asking for is a folding variant of the INFO target.
As stated by Wietse, Posfix will not alter the content but will replace non
printable character (CRLF in this case) with ? in logs.
So it will not do by defaut any folding for you.
Okay, now that makes more sense to me the way you
On 8/26/2022 10:00 AM, post...@ptld.com wrote:
is telling logging to add the '?' at the line break.
Unprintable characters are replaced with "?"
I understand that concept. The only part that leaves me confused is
where did an unprintable character come from and how can you tell
there was a
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 11:11:38AM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
> Therefore unprintable characters - which have the greatest possibility
> of breaking things yet are easily filtered - are replaced in the log
> with "?" for safety.
If there were sufficient compelling interest, we could consider using
The mail client is free to put whatever crap in the Subject (and other headers and the
envelope) they want, regardless of standards or usefulness. It would be unsafe to send
this crap to the logs since there is a rich history of exploits against logging systems
and various log analysis tools. T
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:48:40PM -0400, post...@ptld.com wrote:
> Now that I understand what is happening with postfix logging as
> explained to me in the previous reply, the issue is that postfix
> logging is unfolding the subject without removing the CRLF as per
> RFC5322 2.2.3 where it says "
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022, post...@ptld.com wrote:
I'm not getting your point. Why do you keep talking about a "quoted space"?
The first line ends with CRLF and the second line has to start with a space
to indicate it is a continuation of the previous line (folding). Why are you
saying that means an
On 08-26-2022 1:03 pm, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:48:40PM -0400, post...@ptld.com wrote:
Now that I understand what is happening with postfix logging as
explained to me in the previous reply, the issue is that postfix
logging is unfolding the subject without removing the C
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:26:26PM -0400, post...@ptld.com wrote:
> > Postfix is NOT unfolding the subject, and so not surprisingly not
> > removing the CRLF (really just LF when presented to header_checks,
> > logs, delivered to unix files, ...).
>
> See now that confuses me again.
>
> I though
- Message from Joachim Lindenberg -
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:00:32 +0200
From: Joachim Lindenberg
Subject: AW: MTA-STS implementation
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
I definitely suggest to look into RFC 7672 SMTP-DANE instead of
MTA-STS. SMTP-DANE is more secure than M
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:26:26PM -0400, post...@ptld.com wrote:
>
> > > Postfix is NOT unfolding the subject, and so not surprisingly not
> > > removing the CRLF (really just LF when presented to header_checks,
> > > logs, delivered to unix files, ...).
My response was incomp
23 matches
Mail list logo
