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 2DBBB41DA0 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:57:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8AF40EE6; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:57:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yw1-f178.google.com (mail-yw1-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5174021F for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:57:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-536cd8f6034so309174097b3.10 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 12:57:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wziTe/oWy1q8Lab3mLmzJCl5Wr7XUj7mACEjg314OGg=; b=Yu8fkks7Z38ebZRg3Z1JyNvu7oNAAcdgw+8qBJ133yqSmDgxYTRoW2CMeS9el+2nBj o0C0E5dqQDHqFSoniIzGVzhB53wuwIxC0lf3JqSfofVB6dto/WWJ0xFsZX3WgfvJAlLh myI5TZcM83CkcNQGi/OMzrSaaN700Pc2D3OLA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=wziTe/oWy1q8Lab3mLmzJCl5Wr7XUj7mACEjg314OGg=; b=jXdKabRjiEb0ZkAQIk0429uvkjcJVxoX3/xCMTnl9NT8pdDR5j40o4eMlUtaOByTa+ 6eTwELPyzf5VC/rdPGjZ0ojx5wayKJEWT+nY0bC+ck1TpJEvAW2zxxDNyblMBabcXOqQ SFIfj0+vbIIqJUe0isDNwc7Bv+OhhNLjlOC95Vsn0Z7wHeX6l3oxTPNkrOPmCf7ghj9p TFPLijxVkZEtKj6p/zQKZo2NgUyx6ZmpDeiPTwVBZ2s90jAer7YF6ZoJI/OjcvzTP1Xw rN5CdgrEFct0D5vIpKERLnbSG0Q4wvq7HxoLdmIMPITRcpc8nNeQhztjiJP2cyc9HzQj DS6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUtDdsDQAQpZkSwNAfk/8Ng3E8Kiji5g+zDh68y5CunhXCt5mym /6+OGErJSJvt21c5rBzcdl9x7ArTQMyNieDOUnuScg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+u6v4Cqq4I8eyC1gdf8Ohra3en8E6pF+swGoBdZB8ufIdzJDYAqqrJhq+UIsLL8ePnpdUQUIdOTdBxaj62NBo= X-Received: by 2002:a81:af13:0:b0:533:8f19:4576 with SMTP id n19-20020a81af13000000b005338f194576mr2603637ywh.0.1677617827258; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 12:57:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lincoln Lavoie Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 15:56:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue To: Ali Alnubani Cc: Aaron Conole , "techboard@dpdk.org" , "ci@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9c3ba05f5c8d694" 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 --000000000000a9c3ba05f5c8d694 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ali, We deployed the change to only plaintext emails last week. Can you confirm 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 if failures are still being reported to us. Cheers, Lincoln On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 11:20=E2=80=AFAM Ali Alnubani w= rote: > > Just to make sure, your example is one that failed, correct? > > > > Correct, the copy I got failed DKIM and DMARC authentication. > > > > > 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 more about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc. > > > > Non plaintext emails are more likely to be mangled by Mailman, breaking > DKIM signature verification, and DMARC as a result. > > > > Regards, > Ali > > > > *From:* Lincoln Lavoie > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:37 PM > *To:* Ali Alnubani > *Cc:* Aaron Conole ; techboard@dpdk.org; Lincoln > Lavoie ; ci@dpdk.org > *Subject:* Re: UNH - DMARC issue > > > > HI Ali, > > > > The To / Cc fields all look identical to what was sent / logged on our > internal list. I've attached the raw stuff email. Just to make sure, you= r > example is one that failed, correct? > > > > 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 > more about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc. > > > > Cheers, > Lincoln > > > > 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 > > Hello, and apologies for the delay, > > 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. > > 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/ > > Would it also be possible to switch the format/content-type of these > emails from html to text/plain as way to try and mitigate this? > > Thanks, > Ali > > > > > -- > > *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) > > > --=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) --000000000000a9c3ba05f5c8d694 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi = Ali,

=
We deployed the chan= ge to only plaintext emails last week.=C2=A0 Can you=C2=A0confirm if this i= mproves things from your side=C2=A0for the DMARC results.=C2=A0 I am also a= lso our IT admin to pull the reports for the past couple of days to see if = failures are still being reported to us.

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 11:20=E2=80=AFAM Ali Alnubani = <alialnu@nvidia.com> wrote:=

> Just to make sure, your ex= ample is one that failed, correct?

=C2=A0

Correct, the copy I got failed = DKIM and DMARC authentication.

=C2=A0

> Changing the content / for= mat type will need a little more investigation, just to make sure the chang= e wouldn't break other emails being sent. Does the message content type= impact the DMARC evaluation?=C2=A0 I thought it was more about headers, routing, = and approved mail hosts, etc.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Non plaintext emails are more l= ikely to be mangled by Mailman, breaking DKIM signature verification, and D= MARC as a result.

=C2=A0

Regards,
Ali

=C2=A0

From: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:37 PM
To: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com>
Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>; techboard@dpdk.org; Lincoln Lavoie <lylavioe@iol.unh.edu>; <= a href=3D"mailto:ci@dpdk.org" target=3D"_blank">ci@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue

=C2=A0

HI Ali,=

=C2=A0<= /span>

The To / Cc fields=C2= =A0all look identical to what was sent / logged on our internal list.=C2=A0= I've attached the raw stuff email. Just to make sure, your example is = one that failed, correct?

=C2=A0<= /span>

Changing the content = / format type will need a little=C2=A0more investigation, just to make sure= the change wouldn't break other emails being sent. Does the message co= ntent type impact the DMARC evaluation?=C2=A0 I thought it was more about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc.= =C2=A0=C2=A0

=C2=A0<= /span>

Cheers,
Lincoln

=C2=A0

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:02 AM Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com&= gt; wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 4:42 PM
> To: techboard@= dpdk.org
> Cc: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavioe@iol.unh.edu>; 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 tha= t,
> they found there was an issue with the DPDK mailing lists doing some > header rewriting which will break email bounces via the mailing list t= o
> the lab.
>
> I think Ali is currently investigating, but I'm sending the email = here
> to make sure you're aware.
>
> -Aaron

Hello, and apologies for the delay,

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.

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/tes= t-report/20230208081905.C6CB9600AB@dpdk-ubuntu.dpdklab.iol.unh.edu/

Would it also be possible to switch the format/content-type of these emails= from html to text/plain as way to try and mitigate this?

Thanks,
Ali


=C2=A0

--

Lincoln Lavoie

Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies=

21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824=

+1-603-674-2755 (m)



--
Lincoln Lavoie
<= div>Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., St= e. 100, Durham, NH 03824
+1-60= 3-674-2755 (m)

<= /div>
--000000000000a9c3ba05f5c8d694--