Le 2011-12-26 23:30, Stevan Bajić a écrit : > On 26.12.2011 23:09, fakessh @ wrote: >> Le lundi 26 décembre 2011 21:36, Stevan Bajić a écrit : >>> On 26.12.2011 19:06, fakessh @ wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> !DSPAM:4ef8b7f7135191441210059! >>> Hmm.... this is your error. You modify the body of the message >>> AFTER you >>> have signed it with DKIM/DomainKeys. If you really need to add the >>> DSPAM >>> signature on outbound messages and you want the message to be valid >>> signed with DKIM/DomainKeys then you need to do the signing after >>> you >>> have processed the message with DSPAM. >>> >>> This not DSPAMs fault (*). You are the one doing the error by not >>> configuring a proper mail flow. >>> >>> >>> (*) Yeah, yeah. One could argue and say that DSPAM should be >>> DKIM/DomainKeys aware and not put the DSPAM signature in the body >>> if the >>> mail is digitally signed with DKIM/DomainKeys. >> ie I use dkimproxy to sign emails. there is not an option in this >> case present >> to dspam problem > So you are telling me that this is a DSPAM problem? You understand > that > you told DSPAM to inject the DSPAM signature at the end of the body > and > you made the mail flow as such that first the message is signed by > dkimproxy and then later processed by DSPAM. So how is this a DSPAM > problem when you are the one breaking DK/DKIM? > > It is like making another SMTPD process in Postfix (for example on > port > 25025) and tell that instance to modify the body of the message (with > altermime or other tools) and then you go on and sign the message > first > with dkimproxy and then you pass that singed message to the other > Postfix instance running on port 25025 and after that you claim that > Postfix is broken because Postfix broke the signed message. > > Sorry but it is your setup that is breaking DK/DKIM. You use DSPAM to > break the signature but it really does not matter what tool/mechanism > you use to break the signature. As soon as you modify the body > content > of the message AFTER you have signed it with DK/DKIM you are breaking > the DK/DKIM signature. > > I think you don't understand the concept of DK/DKIM else you would > not > claim that DSPAM is breaking your DK/DKIM signed messages. DSPAM is > in > this case really the one breaking the signed message but it is YOU > telling DSPAM to break it. > > > -- > Kind Regards from Switzerland, > > Stevan Bajić > > I am very free and open to any proposal. Indeed i uses postfix and dovecot dkimproxy sid milter amavisd with multiple content filter my message normaly do not break the dk dkim signatures I understand everything you have said m, I take good note. I will find a solution one day (future update) but adapts dspam to recognize or sign messages with dk dkim. this would easily find a solution to the problem that I encounter
sincerely -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x092164A7 gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 092164A7 http://urlshort.eu fakessh @ http://gplus.to/sshfake http://gplus.to/sshswilting http://gplus.to/john.swilting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev _______________________________________________ Dspam-user mailing list Dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user
