Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB0F3A09CE for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=L76iS5AN; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=hNq1/zDE
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xjaSul874NEU for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 447003A09C6 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31449 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2020 20:38:02 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=7ad4.5f17522a.k2007; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=EwBmOdz4u/K1GSRpIYN1LoYTAmgBdYDmWwB3OmNP1Hc=; b=L76iS5AN2LSOZ0UFcWPcEDcUh1WgUdtrlF8TG6gNauWC51r1n8YNqMK/NsWnvuCkPvDRKM9n/ruA5xWD8q6oLMjDaR9LUuLkqm2T5InsuhnMkCxS8vJqaf3/1YfYlr62Jfxg6IB/uWJigBtrDF5+wspYg4KGCNry3ptSCvIoE5QRFV5IAol9/e1/0XI/RBDo+Wz6g/Duja1+9hZYpZfCbtbDYbnYXViaSzyLJFNzc9zWt4g3XCldHuzyUWErf2zN
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=7ad4.5f17522a.k2007; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=EwBmOdz4u/K1GSRpIYN1LoYTAmgBdYDmWwB3OmNP1Hc=; b=hNq1/zDEFqreQhOVnBizKTmGM2byixyL1o8+HjLP1Vl9mPRQLzksfH3VM535j7F0PHVo2zHdPVSsqmFi4YVAuZMty7pBY/q1KGIXb1Nc+SifaKgdrbQMuChz4jsZ8fvTepG7WEnN6sLJqHN+iYSL1YmWnFSLlewWzZbJ94FPWqM+U2hxD8/B3IYBbTKDwK8DUEFYQV3hhsbWgZ+7KjiHrXRmap7Fh8oONefRfpn4XXD/5pVpEhbKrUvDFKdqrjmK
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 21 Jul 2020 20:38:01 -0000
Date: 21 Jul 2020 16:38:01 -0400
Message-ID: <7fb35fa9-5092-48e4-efca-9d9b10264efa@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Brandon Long" <blong@google.com>
Cc: "ietf-smtp" <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vA3NM=2xFy5-KU2_2Oiur4hw0_vxJpA+4TWapVUFVHXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200721073749.Horde.BvL2fIPJNN50jFlj5GWcj_e@webmail.aegee.org> <20200721201938.D4F7D1D5CAD3@ary.qy> <CABa8R6vA3NM=2xFy5-KU2_2Oiur4hw0_vxJpA+4TWapVUFVHXg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/4mW-0wtSetxt0uHqJRmQnJHB7O8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:38:05 -0000

> A better (but annoying) reason is there are a smattering of servers which
> reject messages based on broken DKIM signatures, against the rfc.

Is that still the case?  Wow, brokenness never ceases.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly