https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
Richard James Salts changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@spectralmud.org
--- Comment #4 from
On 4/29/2019 5:00 PM, Jeremy Harris via Exim-dev wrote:
You'll get the default headers signed, then. That includes signing
the lack-of-presence of a header in the set.
However: it's irrelevant. The ML adding a header making the signature
bad does not matter. The ML also appends to the
On 29/04/2019 20:06, Graeme Fowler via Exim-dev wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2019, at 19:26, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-dev
> wrote:
>> I will do so, either here or in that bug, when I can do so without causing
>> more heat.
>
> The gist of the discussion (I’m a mailop subscriber) is manyfold:
>
> 1.
On 29/04/2019 20:33, Brielle Bruns via Exim-dev wrote:
> Heya, original cause of the havoc on mailop here!
>
> I'll try and answer whatever questions I can. See below.
>
>
> On 2019-04-29 19:06, Graeme Fowler wrote:> So *either* the
> Debian-derived configuration (of which the original poster
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy Harris ---
> fragile
Irrelevant, given the traditional behaviour of MLs in appending body content.
The previous signature will be no longer valid because the message has been
changed. That applies, given the oversigning, to
Heya, original cause of the havoc on mailop here!
I'll try and answer whatever questions I can. See below.
On 2019-04-29 19:06, Graeme Fowler wrote:> So *either* the
Debian-derived configuration (of which the original poster mentioned
they were using unaltered for DKIM purposes, inheriting
On 29/04/2019 20:06, Graeme Fowler via Exim-dev wrote:
> The gist of the discussion (I’m a mailop subscriber) is manyfold:
> 4. Signed messages inbound to mailop.org (and other lists!) from
> Debian-derived and other setups using the default macro defined in pdkim.h
> can have headers added
On 29 Apr 2019, at 19:26, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-dev
wrote:
> I will do so, either here or in that bug, when I can do so without causing
> more heat.
The gist of the discussion (I’m a mailop subscriber) is manyfold:
1. Google accept messages over IPv6 but require stricter verification
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
Graeme Fowler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gra...@graemef.net
--- Comment #2 from Graeme
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-dev wrote:
Do the DKIM exim experts subscribe to the mailop list ?
In https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394 Simon Arlott suggests that the answer is
"no".
In that case (and especially since the links below are on a server which
has an
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
--- Comment #1 from Simon Arlott ---
You keep referencing a secret mailing list that most of us can't read or
subscribe to. You need to provide a copy of the content when you do that.
It is not a bug to sign headers that are not present. The bug here
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
Andrew Aitchison changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.89|4.86+ HEAD
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2394
Bug ID: 2394
Summary: DKIM docs reference obsolete RFC
Product: Exim
Version: 4.89
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: wishlist
Priority:
On 28/04/2019 16:42, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-dev wrote:
> Do the DKIM exim experts subscribe to the mailop list ?
>
> There is an ongoing discussion on the mai...@mailop.org
> about a snafu with DKIM which implicates exim and google.
>
> The original report of the snafu (google rejections
14 matches
Mail list logo
