On 06/06/2024 03:44, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 05:29:16PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
In fact, the original distinction between structured and unstructured
headers defined in the RFC2047 just makes parsing extremely complicated and
I personally
On 05/06/2024 10:25, Viktor Dukhovni via mailop wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:08:31AM +0200, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
Yeah, I misread 8616 there, then; My brain somewhat autoclicked to
"well, if there can be UTF8 you must be able to mime encode."
No, RFC2047 encoding of headers
On 17/05/2024 15:12, Taavi Eomäe via mailop wrote:
Hi!
As part of coordinated disclosure, I am sharing it here as well. In
short, using the approach described below, attackers can replace the
entire contents of a letter, in a way the letters still pass DKIM’s
cryptographic checks. This also
Hello Mary,
Rspamd is a software developed in the UK by its author and main
developer, who is a British citizen and has lived in the UK for most of
his adult life. It has no connection to Russia or Russian developers. I
hope this clears up any misunderstandings about the origin and
On 04/08/2022 16:12, Chris Adams via mailop wrote:
I ran into an issue at $DAYJOB where we had a hard-coded TLS version and
ciphersuite set connecting to Google (specifically aspmx.l.google.com).
The problem turned out to be a library upgrade had disabled SHA1, so the
TLS hello handshake failed.
On 30/06/2022 01:04, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop said:
I agree that would've been better than ARC. However, it'd still need to
know which recipients are mailing list supporting DKIMv2 and operate
accordingly. ...
Not necessarily. On a small
On 28/06/2022 11:32, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Mon 27/Jun/2022 13:39:52 +0200 Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
On 25/06/2022 18:14, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop said:
I really, really miss one simple feature in ARC signatures. Whilst
On 25/06/2022 18:14, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop said:
I really, really miss one simple feature in ARC signatures. Whilst it is
+/- trivial to have a list of trusted signers on a receiver side, it
would be super helpful to allow **a sender
On 24/06/2022 17:54, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Wed 22/Jun/2022 13:31:49 +0200 Slavko via mailop wrote:
Neither I use it. I didn't know rspamd implements ARC. Most of that
module's documentation seems to be about signing, which is not
difficult. But there is a
On 13/12/2021 17:19, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
Hi,
I assume everybody knows that RFC 5322 allows multiple mailboxes in the
From: field. This feature existed in RFC822 already. I think it is to
be used for those cases where multiple persons are authoring a message,
albeit adding
On 10/11/2021 19:47, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 2:31 PM, Chris via mailop wrote:
>> like any other DNS server, you *can* implement a single key by putting
>> your DNSBL zone under a name like ".example.com"
>
>
> The only issue here is that, for every user/customer that needs a
On 04/11/2021 19:53, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop said:
>> Rspamd RBLDNSD version [1] can do it as well. It is also much faster
>> than the original one (like 4 times faster) and allows dynamic updates.
>> And unlike Spamhaus stuff, it is
On 04/11/2021 14:28, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 2021-11-04 at 10:07:04 UTC-0400 (Thu, 4 Nov 2021 09:07:04 -0500)
> Larry M. Smith via mailop
> is rumored to have said:
>
>> Isn't this how Spamhaus runs their DQS service?
>
> Yes. It is how they've run non-free access for well over a
on
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm currently building a prototype of BIMI agent in Rspamd as per this
>> Github issue: https://github.com/rspamd/rspamd/issues/3935
>>
>> However, this
Hello,
I'm currently building a prototype of BIMI agent in Rspamd as per this
Github issue: https://github.com/rspamd/rspamd/issues/3935
However, this technology seems to be very immature and only fragmentary
documented in some aspects. I was able to find just one (!) valid VMC
for
On 14/10/2021 21:10, Mary via mailop wrote:
>
> I've tried to get in touch with the OpenDKIM developers with little success,
> it appears that the project was alive 10 years ago with lots of development
> effort, which eventually died along with all their other projects (OpenDMARC,
> OpenARC,
On 13/10/2021 13:35, Odhiambo Washington via mailop wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:16 PM Slavko via mailop <mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
>
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:52:38 +0100 Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop
> mailto:mailop@mai
On 12/10/2021 11:38, Slavko via mailop wrote:
> Dňa 12. 10. o 11:02 Sidsel Jensen via mailop napísal(a):
>> My question to you: What are your thoughts on starting to sign with ed25519
>> keys and what is currently holdning you back?
>
> I am using dual sign with ed25519 keys for some months
I see a 'trigger' word Rspamd there, which is good. However, I'm still
quite sure that mime parsing and mime modifications should be better
done via Rspamd, as it can do it more efficiently than JS code. You can
take a look at `rspamadm mime` commands family that could simplify many
things related
On 09/05/2021 20:03, Ralph Seichter via mailop wrote:
> * Steven Champeon via mailop:
>
>> if you need something special [in Postfix], such as say, blocking mail
>> from the idiot with infinite Gmail accounts having common Vietnamese
>> surnames in them who keeps trying to sell t-shirts to your
On 01/05/2021 10:09, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
>
>
> On 01.05.21 09:05, Chris via mailop wrote:
>> Heh. You've never used Qpsmtpd or Haraka, I can tell. Haraka and
>
> Nope. Didn't have to. That's why I was curious about use cases that were
> not possible with the more common MTAs.
>
On 28/04/2021 05:27, vsai--- via mailop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been receiving spam and phishing scams from Google IP(s).
>
> All these messages have the sender domains associated either with
> Godaddy or with Google work space.
>
> Some of the sample sender domains are listed below:
>
>
On 16/04/2021 13:44, micah via mailop wrote:
>
> It seems to be a fun past-time for some people to mailbomb users (10k
> emails in minutes), to blow up a person's mailbox so they are over
> quota, or to make them miss an important email.
>
> I'm curious what others have settled on for
On 27/03/2021 21:00, Wolfgang Rosenauer via mailop wrote:
> Am 27.03.21 um 18:15 schrieb John Levine via mailop:
>> It appears that Wolfgang Rosenauer via mailop
>> said:
>>> Yes, there are such cases but I don't think they apply for this list.
>>>
>>> Yes - the list breaks DKIM (which is already
On 16/02/2021 21:25, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote:
> FYI, you might want to check your outbound spam filter ;)
>
> X-Spam: Yes
>
> One thing to note, and maybe should be something to actually take up
> with RFC's, but wonder if flags like this should some how become trace
> headers..
>
>
On 16/02/2021 17:31, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2021, at 3:39, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
>
>> On Mon 15/Feb/2021 22:07:20 +0100 John Levine via mailop wrote:
>>> In article <463b0950-7b4e-d81d-7abc-0cf5120f6...@tana.it> you write:
>
On 15/02/2021 21:02, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> In article <20210215085929.76srgtpbaqbms...@sys4.de> you write:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> is anyone using ed22519 for DKIM signatures yet and what do you see? Any
>> interop problems?
>
> Aside from the fact that approximately nobody can validate
On 22/12/2020 20:39, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> In article <21e3c5bb-b8bd-460b-84d9-6419b5434...@one.com> you write:
>>> On 21 Dec 2020, at 21.16, Kevin A. McGrail via mailop
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/21/2020 1:56 PM, Eric Tykwinski via mailop wrote:
Just a heads up:
v=spf1
On 22/12/2020 07:54, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2020, at 21.16, Kevin A. McGrail via mailop
>> mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/21/2020 1:56 PM, Eric Tykwinski via mailop wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a heads up:
>>>
>>> v=spf1 include:spf2.bluehost.com
On 11/07/2020 01:59, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
>
>
> Anyways, ecc has been added to DKIM, but I'm not sure how widely
> deployed verifying it is.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8463
Just in case, Rspamd supports ED25519 DKIM signatures for both
verification (since 1.7.6 released in
On 14/10/2019 16:28, Lena--- via mailop wrote:
> Two examples:
>
> co.uk
> bk.ru
>
> Looks similar, right? But there are multiple domains under .co.uk
> belonging to multiple different corporaions, like under .com
> bk.ru belongs to single corporation (it owns also mail.ru).
> If a mailbox
Bill,
On 28/04/2019 20:37, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2019, at 13:05, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/19 11:43 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>>> I can't say "should" because that's a site-specific/sender-specific
>>> choice.
>>
>> As is the choice to (over)sign headers, even
32 matches
Mail list logo
