Don’t worry, I watch the No Starch Press website and pre order one copy. Francisco Valladolid H. -- http://blog.bsdguy.net - Jesus Christ follower.
On Thu 10 Jul 2025 at 10:59 a.m. Constantine A. Murenin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 at 10:04, Francisco Valladolid H. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > You can share the link > > I knew something was missing! > > Surprisingly, it's actually in this very thread, but we just don't see > it in Gmail, because of the DMARC policy of the sending domain. > > Actually, per dmarc, the message was supposed to have been completely > rejected by Gmail in accordance to the wishes of the sending domain, > but instead it appears to be quarantined in the Spam folder with the > following disclaimer regarding the authenticity: > > ==<< > Be careful with this message. > > The sender hasn't authenticated this message, so Gmail can't verify > that it actually came from them. Avoid clicking links, downloading > attachments or replying with personal information. > ==>> > > And the following headers: > > ==<< > Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; > dkim=pass [email protected] header.s=selector1 > header.b=tBHmT4Wo; > dkim=fail [email protected] header.s=x header.b=Mi9X6MwO; > spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] > designates 199.185.178.25 as permitted sender) > smtp.mailfrom="[email protected]"; > dmarc=fail (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=QUARANTINE) header.from= > bsdly.net > ==>> > > Looking at DKIM, the signature obviously has to be invalid because > most of the headers it's signed over, would invariably be > amended/changed by any mailing list after the initial DKIM signature > by the initial sending domain: > > ==<< > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; > d=bsdly.net; s=x; > h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date: > Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: > > Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: > In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: > List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; > bh=JsoUF37AsgW/BUaM5sLb9g6P06mQOd5PUQ8y9Tv3fq8=; > b=Mi9X6MwOr+1lWkeO6KqMN+WQhB > > 4IF1gd6clO8gGGWr93J3WaqVbjolfFDXKG0JkKW5xGiC/Nu8H90KABKi6rXFD+370xKn5W4XRKoQJ > 3fOHk1kww1QE2y3waoTgUfaEOvIYLB68MZMiPEQeXZrAG4VPfcPxcFIMGMHvKJQaJYUo=; > ==>> > > If those `Sender` and `List*` headers weren't included, the DKIM would > probably pass, because [email protected] doesn't append to the body of > the message, nor does it rewrite the basic Subject/To/From headers, > unlike some other lists do. > > Anyhow, a copy can also be obtained at: > > * https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=175205773526134&w=2 > > And the pre-order is at: > > * https://nostarch.com/book-of-pf-4th-edition > > Best regards, > Constantine. >
