Bill Landry writes,
> Mark, your patches for DKIM.pm and DkSignature.pm took care of the issue
> I was seeing with GMail DomainKey signatures, since they were missing
> the "q=dns" tag.
Below is a similar patch to Mail/DKIM/DkSignature.pm,
this time to handle missing 'a' tags in DomainKeys signatu
Mark Martinec wrote the following on 2/15/2007 3:37 AM -0800:
Raul Dias writes:
I have being getting a lot of this in my logs:
[snip]
Below is my patch, please apply it to Mail::DKIM files
DkSignature.pm and Verifier.pm and see if it fixes the warnings
you are seeing.
Mark, your patches f
> ok, the warnings are gone. There is only one missing ; in the patch
> Missing ; here, right?
Right.
-+ : "invalid domain in d tag"
++ : "invalid domain in d tag";
If you want, you may apply also my patch to Plugin::DKIM.pm.
Fixes two minor problems and
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 12:37 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
[...]
> Below is my patch, please apply it to Mail::DKIM files
> DkSignature.pm and Verifier.pm and see if it fixes the warnings
> you are seeing.
ok, the warnings are gone. There is only one missing ; in the patch
(below).
> > AFAIS, it i
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> >> I thought you voted for letting Mail::DKIM spew whatever it wanted. :)
> >>
> >> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5095#c3
> >>
> >> Probably not a bad idea since it may encourage people to upg
Justin,
> well, it may be easy for us to not produce the invalid input
> that's causing this one...
No, in that particular case it was Mail::DKIM that was overreacting.
Mark
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5095#c3
Btw, that particular check and message was removed from Mail::DKIM:
-- VERSION 0.20 --
2006-10-24: Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/Mail/DKIM/MessageParser.pm: removed problematic check for
"control characters"
> Probably no
Justin Mason wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
I thought you voted for letting Mail::DKIM spew whatever it wanted. :)
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5095#c3
Probably not a bad idea since it may encourage people to upgrade to
newer versions of Mail::DKIM that fix whateve
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> I thought you voted for letting Mail::DKIM spew whatever it wanted. :)
>
> http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5095#c3
>
> Probably not a bad idea since it may encourage people to upgrade to
> newer versions of Mail::DKIM that fix whatever is being
I thought you voted for letting Mail::DKIM spew whatever it wanted. :)
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5095#c3
Probably not a bad idea since it may encourage people to upgrade to
newer versions of Mail::DKIM that fix whatever is being spewed about.
Daryl
Justin Mason
Raul Dias writes:
> I have being getting a lot of this in my logs:
>
> Feb 14 21:55:13 s spamd[7249]: dkim: invalid DKIM-Signature: invalid
> (unsupported protocol)
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/DKIM.pm
> line 339
>
> Is this something I should worry about?
I belie
Can you capture a message that causes this, and open a bug on the
bugzilla? I haven't seen that before. (Even if it's harmless,
the warning message is ugly.)
--j.
Raul Dias writes:
> I have being getting a lot of this in my logs:
>
> Feb 14 21:55:13 s spamd[7249]: dkim: invalid DKIM-Signature
On Thu, February 15, 2007 03:21, Raul Dias wrote:
> I have being getting a lot of this in my logs:
> Feb 14 21:55:13 s spamd[7249]: dkim: invalid DKIM-Signature: invalid
> (unsupported protocol)
> at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/DKIM.pm line
> 339, line 390
you have th
13 matches
Mail list logo
