Re: Test number two - spaces
Re-sending this to see if it is a reliable repro case. On 2018-10-27 16:53, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > Oh, I feel the itch again. Ow-ow, it's unbearable! I must scratch, > > > > Has anyone tried to verify Derek's GPG signature on his message? > > Checking, checking, checking gently, > Why it fails, that beats me. > Bad sigs rub so unpleasantly. > Let us check my own sweet key. Ok, that worked. Now let's try this: This line ends with a couple of dangling spaces. Now _that_ would be really stupid! -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Test number two - spaces
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:55:00AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > Perhaps there is a little clue here. Some kind of load balancing seems > to be in effect at osuosl, different hosts (silver, whitealder, > fraxinus, ash) are involved each time. Possibly different amavis > configuration on some of the hosts handling the outbound traffic. Yes, > I suspect amavis more than the other pieces; it should be the only piece > that takes apart the MIME structure. My Received headers match what you posted for the "Test number two" email, and all the signatures verify for me. In fact, I don't recall seeing any failing signatures on this list, before or after the switch to OSUOSL. I would suspect something between OSUOSL and your spoolfile is causing the problem. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Test number two - spaces
On 2018-10-28 04:19, Claus Assmann wrote: > > RGH!! I am losing my mind!! > > Hopefully it's backed up somewhere... ;-) > If you kept a copies of the mails which you originally sent > and which you got back: what's the "diff"? Indeed I have kept a file copy. The diff confirms my suspicion that the dangling spaces were the trigger. I got this suspicion by looking at Derek's messages, of which one verifies for me and the other does not. @@ -33,7 +89,7 @@ > Let us check my own sweet key. Ok, that worked. Now let's try this:=20 -This line ends with a couple of dangling spaces. =20 +This line ends with a couple of dangling spaces.=20=20=20=20 Now _that_ would be really stupid! This does not tell us at which hop it happens, which software is responsible, or (especially) why it depends on the _recipient_ aside from all other things. > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B91227F9; > Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:34 + (UTC) > Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) > by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) > with ESMTP id R3tMY4OIzjA6; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:33 + (UTC) > Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) > by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C728227C1; > Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:33 + (UTC) > Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) > by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57471BF61D > for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B3B86767 > for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) > Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) > by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) > with ESMTP id 9o-8499bbnC7 for ; > Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) Perhaps there is a little clue here. Some kind of load balancing seems to be in effect at osuosl, different hosts (silver, whitealder, fraxinus, ash) are involved each time. Possibly different amavis configuration on some of the hosts handling the outbound traffic. Yes, I suspect amavis more than the other pieces; it should be the only piece that takes apart the MIME structure. -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
Re: Test number two - spaces
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2018-10-27 18:23, Claus Assmann wrote: > > Just FYI: both test mails passed verification for me. > RGH!! I am losing my mind!! Hopefully it's backed up somewhere... > Here are the intermediate Received headers of the 2nd test mail as it > came back to me. Can you share the ones in your copy? I deleted the mails already :-( However, below are the Received headers of your most recent mail. If you kept a copies of the mails which you originally sent and which you got back: what's the "diff"? Moreover, I downloaded the "raw" message from the MARC archive, added some headers, and it verifies too. So I'm attaching that as .gz file so it doesn't get messed up by some mail software. Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B91227F9; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:34 + (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3tMY4OIzjA6; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:33 + (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C728227C1; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:33 + (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57471BF61D for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B3B86767 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9o-8499bbnC7 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) Received: from very.loosely.org (very.loosely.org [173.255.215.69]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D87886761 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:42:32 + (UTC) Received: from itz by ahiker.mooo.com with local (Exim 4.91_26-9591063a) (envelope-from ) id 1gGbtd-PD-8F for mutt-users@mutt.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 20:37:49 -0700 m2.gz Description: application/gunzip
Re: Test number two - spaces
On 2018-10-27 18:23, Claus Assmann wrote: > Just FYI: both test mails passed verification for me. RGH!! I am losing my mind!! Here are the intermediate Received headers of the 2nd test mail as it came back to me. Can you share the ones in your copy? Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C788647F; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:22:33 + (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ml_6-3RG8bAN; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:22:33 + (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3765E85F89; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:22:33 + (UTC) X-Original-To: mutt-users@mutt.org Delivered-To: mutt-us...@osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D901BF2F0 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:22:32 + (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E833220C2 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:22:32 + (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IzrZogh12v0Z for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:22:31 + (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
Re: Test number two - spaces
On 2018-10-27 17:19, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > Ok, that worked. Now let's try this: > This line ends with a couple of dangling spaces. > > Now _that_ would be really stupid! And so it is - that one failed :-( The best available conclusion is that at one the the hops on osuosl.org, mails get rewritten in a way similar to what I described at the link below. https://very.loosely.org/itz-blog/the-problem-with-gpg-signatures.html Which is depressing because the software involved seems to be all FOSS - mailman, postfix and amavis. Should I guess which one is responsible? -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
Re: Test number two - spaces
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, Ken Moffat wrote: > 3. Neither the post you were asking about, nor either of your tests, > passed verification here. Just FYI: both test mails passed verification for me.
Re: Test number two - spaces
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 05:19:23PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2018-10-27 16:53, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > > > Oh, I feel the itch again. Ow-ow, it's unbearable! I must scratch, > > > > > > Has anyone tried to verify Derek's GPG signature on his message? > > > > Checking, checking, checking gently, > > Why it fails, that beats me. > > Bad sigs rub so unpleasantly. > > Let us check my own sweet key. > > Ok, that worked. Now let's try this: > This line ends with a couple of dangling spaces. > > Now _that_ would be really stupid! > For the *very* little it is worth: 1. On lkml I typically get successful and failed verifications from the same people. 2. On the few occasions I have bothered to sign posts, the list copy that comes back to me fails to verify. 3. Neither the post you were asking about, nor either of your tests, passed verification here. /me wonders why I ever bothered to set up a key, since it wastes time when reading lists, and only randomly works. ;-) ĸen -- Is it about a bicycle ?
Re: Test number two - spaces
On 2018-10-27 16:53, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > Oh, I feel the itch again. Ow-ow, it's unbearable! I must scratch, > > > > Has anyone tried to verify Derek's GPG signature on his message? > > Checking, checking, checking gently, > Why it fails, that beats me. > Bad sigs rub so unpleasantly. > Let us check my own sweet key. Ok, that worked. Now let's try this: This line ends with a couple of dangling spaces. Now _that_ would be really stupid! -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
