From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA1041DAE for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:21:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F5D4114A; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:21:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB3640693; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:21:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A6C5C0121; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 15:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:21:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1677702082; x= 1677788482; bh=QBADv+1hn0HV/C5GnqS0kwDNMR0iXPOXGIQXLsEx7x8=; b=L nn1I95q8KrnliZj+ewi/UcItMbHl+Z29C7+58/MgKREDwpb9HHF4hLQKkgTgdQcE ERbc8HbqGRzeCl+wnlUEVZw1WoUFZfNDsOkuT5xnSfT98uVd5fXRnJW9riV0JUu1 rCWB9V3ktYAGmO1196nAePwmNCy4LpC6Bg9SGd6Ei40l0ThLqzELwKD8p5UBPgJz lW8DQtK9bgOW3H4PvLhW7elXXUr5cn4yEgE7H7qVTQ8+i/uTmXB2mXa3NXVe2Q4F Pwc4t5bpbsPYCHkgzsU01XUfwkbSTlpbCqCtP0LJ8kq4i8AXt3uZ166G7TCvPWAf KK8JL2y+cTyJEQ70Ju9bA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1677702082; x= 1677788482; bh=QBADv+1hn0HV/C5GnqS0kwDNMR0iXPOXGIQXLsEx7x8=; b=e dw7y6ieWvyv0jdYLJlKU7Gh3dH1k71R2c1oo+p0UjXUnUkOH8lJ0n2kuz8LYVhkJ n+CDj9DHRoYb/LYXwBKaqCcdlzs6a9bftDdeb7tYEWd3jXv8UkZ0gh8+efyVBYu2 9xUJtfr8yIuJ9/dEJXhwX4cGe9pKHfwEAUlIQ3x2AEC678Be4EbstJ9tD/8N+lG3 andrxbqYuHzS6dk5VjP+FkDmlk2ktf3UwULlKebIKx3vMBIONkRs8DAhiiNGz4XA 5SnalX8oiZMiX6+WFPREZsEogTJ5s0q1vcwqCSrj4TeWNNwZuk8dD1eLqXZTTywS N3fmjY8/TgJaPQub4WSJw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudelhedguddvkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdtuefhhedvkeelleevffdvlefhleehvdegtddvvdduueei vedtgfejvddugeefnecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 15:21:21 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lincoln Lavoie , Ali Alnubani Cc: techboard@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , "techboard@dpdk.org" , "ci@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2023 21:21:18 +0100 Message-ID: <2835880.LqEvEWPEkG@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Instead of patching, can we just make sure the subject is shorter? Is there an impact in limiting the subject length? 01/03/2023 20:52, Ali Alnubani: > Hello, >=20 > After further investigation, I see now that some reports have broken DKIM= signatures because Mailman (or the email libraries it uses) are folding th= eir long subject headers into multiple lines, probably to conform with inte= rnet standards. There isn=E2=80=99t a configuration to control this per lis= t in Mailman though, so I might have to look into patching it. Will update = hopefully by end of next week. >=20 > Can you keep the emails in plaintext format? They are more readable now i= n https://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/ as the body is no longer being encode= d. >=20 > Regards, > Ali >=20 > From: Ali Alnubani > Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 3:10 PM > To: Lincoln Lavoie > Cc: Aaron Conole ; techboard@dpdk.org; ci@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: UNH - DMARC issue >=20 > Hi Lincoln, >=20 > Thank you for taking the time to make the change. > Unfortunately, however, I see that even some of the plaintext ones are st= ill failing DMARC. This is an example if you want to check from your client: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/20230301075112.591AB601B1@dpdk-ubuntu.= dpdklab.iol.unh.edu/ >=20 > I=E2=80=99m checking if there is something I missed. >=20 > Regards, > Ali >=20 > From: Lincoln Lavoie > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:57 PM > To: Ali Alnubani > > Cc: Aaron Conole >; techboa= rd@dpdk.org; ci@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue >=20 > Hi Ali, >=20 > We deployed the change to only plaintext emails last week. Can you confi= rm if this improves things from your side for the DMARC results. I am also= also our IT admin to pull the reports for the past couple of days to see i= f failures are still being reported to us. >=20 > Cheers, > Lincoln >=20 > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 11:20=E2=80=AFAM Ali Alnubani > wrote: > > Just to make sure, your example is one that failed, correct? >=20 > Correct, the copy I got failed DKIM and DMARC authentication. >=20 > > Changing the content / format type will need a little more investigatio= n, just to make sure the change wouldn't break other emails being sent. Doe= s the message content type impact the DMARC evaluation? I thought it was m= ore about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc. >=20 > Non plaintext emails are more likely to be mangled by Mailman, breaking D= KIM signature verification, and DMARC as a result. >=20 > Regards, > Ali >=20 > From: Lincoln Lavoie > > Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:37 PM > To: Ali Alnubani > > Cc: Aaron Conole >; techboa= rd@dpdk.org; Lincoln Lavoie >; ci@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue >=20 > HI Ali, >=20 > The To / Cc fields all look identical to what was sent / logged on our in= ternal list. I've attached the raw stuff email. Just to make sure, your ex= ample is one that failed, correct? >=20 > Changing the content / format type will need a little more investigation,= just to make sure the change wouldn't break other emails being sent. Does = the message content type impact the DMARC evaluation? I thought it was mor= e about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc. >=20 > Cheers, > Lincoln >=20 > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:02 AM Ali Alnubani > wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aaron Conole > > > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 4:42 PM > > To: techboard@dpdk.org > > Cc: Lincoln Lavoie >;= ci@dpdk.org > > Subject: UNH - DMARC issue > > > > Hi all, > > > > UNH reported that their IT will be turning on DMARC enforcement "soon." > > I'm not sure when that will exactly take place, but as part of that, > > they found there was an issue with the DPDK mailing lists doing some > > header rewriting which will break email bounces via the mailing list to > > the lab. > > > > I think Ali is currently investigating, but I'm sending the email here > > to make sure you're aware. > > > > -Aaron >=20 > Hello, and apologies for the delay, >=20 > I can confirm that DMARC is failing for some of the reports, but I don't = see obvious mangling to the headers or bodies of these emails. >=20 > Can you please help verify that the list of recipients in To and Cc isn't= being mangled for the reports failing DMARC? Example: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/20230208081905.C6CB9600AB@dpdk-ubuntu.= dpdklab.iol.unh.edu/ >=20 > Would it also be possible to switch the format/content-type of these emai= ls from html to text/plain as way to try and mitigate this? >=20 > Thanks, > Ali >=20 >=20 > -- > Lincoln Lavoie > Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies > 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 > lylavoie@iol.unh.edu > https://www.iol.unh.edu > +1-603-674-2755 (m) > [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xlKa1qM3IJKocZErE7ywuQu= w_cfMEDW_tlU6Dw8dHUTWPjdawcJawE6HcYf7_JfXJnr9fvVJI] >=20 >=20 > -- > Lincoln Lavoie > Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies > 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 > lylavoie@iol.unh.edu > https://www.iol.unh.edu > +1-603-674-2755 (m) > [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xlKa1qM3IJKocZErE7ywuQu= w_cfMEDW_tlU6Dw8dHUTWPjdawcJawE6HcYf7_JfXJnr9fvVJI] >=20