History and implementation status of Opportunistic Encryption for IPsec
Bob Jonkman
bjonkman-w5ExpX8uLjYAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Wed Sep 18 00:25:06 UTC 2013
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> sending a multipart message already violates the requested rules
PGP/MIME signed (or GnuPG/MIME ?) messages are also multipart messages.
Surely signed messages are not against the rules?
But if they are I will re-configure to respect that rule.
--Bob.
Bob Jonkman <bjonkman-w5ExpX8uLjYAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> Phone: +1-519-669-0388
SOBAC Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/
http://bob.jonkman.ca/blogs/ http://sn.jonkman.ca/bobjonkman/
Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting
GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA
On 13-09-16 03:27 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 02:27:38PM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>> Mystery 0: DCB's postings to the list don't appear. This is a
>> long-time problem. The admins are aware of it. This same problem
>> seems to afflict David Tilbrook.
>>
>> Mystery 1: James Knott did not get the first message in the thread.
>> It was mostly a forwarding of
>> <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2013-September/017533.html>
>>
>>
>> Mystery 2: the archive has none of the messages in the thread
>> <http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.tolug/>
>>
>> But I got the first message, and so did DCB. More than that I do not
>> know.
>>
>> Mystery 3: The mailing list software failed to add the usual footer
>> properly. One that includes the request:
>> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
>> If you look at the message (included below) you will see that the
>> footer is added without consideration of MIME encapsulation.
>>
>> The original message is multi-part MIME. First part text, second part
>> HTML. But William's second message has the same disease and WAS read
>> by James. It too has the footer improperly added. So this explains
>> Mystery 3: don't use mime encapsulation.
>
> The mailing list software is dumb. It simply appents the footer as plain
> text, with no concern for multipart, attachments, or anything else.
> Of course given the footer and rules for the list is "No HTML", then
> sending a multipart message already violates the requested rules, so
> broken mailing list sofware that doesn't handle messages that break the
> rules may in fact be considered not important. No idea. Apparently
> majordomo2 is supposed to have a multipart compatible parser and be able
> to insert footers in the right place. I suspect ss.org is running
> majordomo1 though.
>
> For example vger's majordomo is described as:
>
> The Majordomo is configured with a set of filter rules which when
> triggered will send the email to "/dev/null".
> (List owner actually, but they are overworked elsewere, and use "d"
> button usually...)
>
> Usage of HTML in email -- even as an alternate format -- is considered
> to be signature characteristics of SPAM.
> Ignore this at your own peril!
> A collection of phrases/keywords which appear commonly at those
> bloody SPAMs -- in case it is a TEXT/PLAIN spam, and not HTML-SPAM...
> Message size exceeding 100 000 characters causes blocking.
>
> See the actual Majordomo taboo expressions.
>
> Makes me wonder if ss.org happens to have any Majordomo taboo expressions
> defined in a config file that might be causing DCB's messages to get
> trashed.
>
>> Mystery 4: the original version of this very message did not appear. I've
>> changed the title and eliminated the quoting of the first message of this
>> thread. So I hope this one gets through.
>>
>> Here's the thread in my mailbox:
>> Wednesday William Muriithi (43K) [TLUG]: Fwd: [Cryptography] History and implementation statu
>> Yesterday To: Toronto Linux Users Group (3K) Re: [TLUG]: Fwd: [Cryptography] History and implementation s
>> Yesterday James Knott (4K) Re: [TLUG]: Fwd: [Cryptography] History and implementation s
>> Yesterday William Muriithi (4K) Re: [TLUG]: Fwd: [Cryptography] History and implementation s
>> Yesterday James Knott (4K) Re: [TLUG]: Fwd: [Cryptography] History and implementation s
>
> Well I certainly saw the first message, and seem to recall seeing more
> in that thread as well.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20130917/419e4264/attachment.sig>
More information about the Legacy
mailing list