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 816A641DAE for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:35:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB2F40A7E; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:35:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yb1-f174.google.com (mail-yb1-f174.google.com [209.85.219.174]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A2140A7E for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:35:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yb1-f174.google.com with SMTP id k199so1634980ybf.4 for ; Wed, 01 Mar 2023 12:35:52 -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=llE7PuTGvN22gUQ3VMe8YoIG6vdIW0qa4BDhWjAfXAg=; b=aFxr9X80pbFJcfEgW+VBn8Jdhuc9M/LJoGWESKpThgqwAZUDscF5/LGCnz8V+V+ebd TkkxoNvQCqrsJ6Yu+ReJVFh7bblE6mzwbCqSpmWkcu/E6Pwq6ICJT3qgrISKHpc51AJ0 yP82ghSj4IScdoC77zh6ymCyiNGdbZINv+tpw= 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=llE7PuTGvN22gUQ3VMe8YoIG6vdIW0qa4BDhWjAfXAg=; b=lHBrpzUqoAxT+LeYObf8NSegslUwTtM7aQtFEgtUUhL4BufK9ANR4QBE1T17bGBMv/ Ds8o9qntG5RmPc4vU6qcR/hmXfMFHNemDK0gIq6lxSUiMEr7NZLISfvGwWtkUyHltk9m btKgHDnIFJu/n2LUZ+qJgjDtDlXFj2Zw90UurdDZ15HibKFvKjacwsyyWwlQCpQhiyQ3 oFsdpN5XnScbNEqwVVaEVJ69kbFEHuJqrXlDQs3VyHRdg7SxuzGe8vXg24O7wR17ztSz u68Bp4hDBA8OgUF2fbUXuUNDNr2XZfynHlAQGz24x36xE1EjadF5c0ix45pUrvPMbdUH wuKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXeA37if6r2PcPoiWWJfWy+YfwRxOExi/u7qUySV6f2A8iwbNuQ KPWTmH7myPKokRjsPWKCcf7EeU/1MjBtBFxRFUp8EQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8ymb0vAAyl1xYmQ9K3dk717T1HMHV77U9IkA/Fz4A1xzLryA+b4xoBxdIu+hzMg+5Wcb4VGjFPGGKwWhbq+Wo= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:d45:0:b0:a58:7139:cf85 with SMTP id f5-20020a5b0d45000000b00a587139cf85mr4186355ybr.13.1677702951653; Wed, 01 Mar 2023 12:35:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2835880.LqEvEWPEkG@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2835880.LqEvEWPEkG@thomas> From: Lincoln Lavoie Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 15:35:39 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Ali Alnubani , Aaron Conole , "techboard@dpdk.org" , "ci@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078f1d505f5dca8cb" 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 --00000000000078f1d505f5dca8cb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ali, Yes, plain text is here to stay, it's been updated in all of our tooling. We can also limit the subject lines. Do you know the "safe" length from mailman? Cheers, Lincoln On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:21=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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, > > > > After further investigation, I see now that some reports have broken > DKIM signatures because Mailman (or the email libraries it uses) are > folding their long subject headers into multiple lines, probably to confo= rm > with internet standards. There isn=E2=80=99t a configuration to control t= his per > list in Mailman though, so I might have to look into patching it. Will > update hopefully by end of next week. > > > > Can you keep the emails in plaintext format? They are more readable now > in https://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/ as the body is no longer being > encoded. > > > > Regards, > > Ali > > > > 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 > > > > Hi Lincoln, > > > > Thank you for taking the time to make the change. > > Unfortunately, however, I see that even some of the plaintext ones are > still 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/ > > > > I=E2=80=99m checking if there is something I missed. > > > > Regards, > > Ali > > > > From: Lincoln Lavoie = > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:57 PM > > To: Ali Alnubani > > > Cc: Aaron Conole >; > techboard@dpdk.org; ci@dpdk.org ci@dpdk.org> > > Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue > > > > 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 alialnu@nvidia.com>> wrote: > > > 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 < > lylavioe@iol.unh.edu>; ci@dpdk.org 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 alialnu@nvidia.com>> 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 her= e > > > 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) > > [ > https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xlKa1qM3IJKocZErE7ywuQuw= _cfMEDW_tlU6Dw8dHUTWPjdawcJawE6HcYf7_JfXJnr9fvVJI > ] > > > > > > -- > > 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/AIorK4xlKa1qM3IJKocZErE7ywuQuw= _cfMEDW_tlU6Dw8dHUTWPjdawcJawE6HcYf7_JfXJnr9fvVJI > ] > > > > > > > > --=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) --00000000000078f1d505f5dca8cb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi = Ali,

=
Yes, plain text is h= ere to stay, it's been updated in all of our tooling.=C2=A0=C2=A0
=

We can also limit the subject = lines.=C2=A0 Do you know the "safe" length from mailman?

Cheers,
Lincoln
On Wed, M= ar 1, 2023 at 3:21=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
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,
>
> After further investigation, I see now that some reports have broken D= KIM signatures because Mailman (or the email libraries it uses) are folding= their long subject headers into multiple lines, probably to conform with i= nternet standards. There isn=E2=80=99t a configuration to control this per = list in Mailman though, so I might have to look into patching it. Will upda= te hopefully by end of next week.
>
> Can you keep the emails in plaintext format? They are more readable no= w in https://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/ as the body is no lo= nger being encoded.
>
> Regards,
> Ali
>
> From: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 3:10 PM
> To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>; techboard@dpdk.org; ci@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: UNH - DMARC issue
>
> Hi Lincoln,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to make the change.
> Unfortunately, however, I see that even some of the plaintext ones are= still failing DMARC. This is an example if you want to check from your cli= ent:
> ht= tps://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/20230301075112.591AB601B1@dpdk-ubuntu.dpdk= lab.iol.unh.edu/
>
> I=E2=80=99m checking if there is something I missed.
>
> Regards,
> Ali
>
> From: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:57 PM
> To: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com<mailto:alialnu@nvidia.com>>
> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com<mailto:aconole@redhat.com>>; techboard@dpdk.org<mailto:techboard@dpdk.org>= ; ci@dpdk.org<mailt= o:ci@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: UNH - DMARC issue
>
> Hi Ali,
>
> We deployed the change to only plaintext emails last week.=C2=A0 Can y= ou confirm if this improves things from your side for the DMARC results.=C2= =A0 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 <alialnu@nvidia.com<mailto= :alialnu@nvidia.com= >> wrote:
> > 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 invest= igation, just to make sure the change wouldn't break other emails being= sent. Does the message content type impact the DMARC evaluation?=C2=A0 I t= hought it was more about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc. >
> Non plaintext emails are more likely to be mangled by Mailman, breakin= g DKIM signature verification, and DMARC as a result.
>
> Regards,
> Ali
>
> From: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:37 PM
> To: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com<mailto:alialnu@nvidia.com>>
> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com<mailto:aconole@redhat.com>>; techboard@dpdk.org<mailto:techboard@dpdk.org>= ; Lincoln Lavoie <lylavioe@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylavioe@iol.unh.edu>>; ci@dpdk.org<mailto: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.=C2=A0 I've attached the raw stuff email. Just to make s= ure, your example is one that failed, correct?
>
> Changing the content / format type will need a little more investigati= on, just to make sure the change wouldn't break other emails being sent= . Does the message content type impact the DMARC evaluation?=C2=A0 I though= t it was more about headers, routing, and approved mail hosts, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:02 AM Ali Alnubani <alialnu@nvidia.com<mailto:alialnu@nvidia.com>= > wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com<mailto:aconole@redhat.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 4:42 PM
> > To: techb= oard@dpdk.org<mailto:techboard@dpdk.org>
> > Cc: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavioe@iol.unh.edu<mailto:lylavioe@iol.unh.edu>>; ci@dpdk.org<mailto:ci@dpdk.org>
> > Subject: UNH - DMARC issue
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > UNH reported that their IT will be turning on DMARC enforcement &= quot;soon."
> > I'm not sure when that will exactly take place, but as part o= f that,
> > they found there was an issue with the DPDK mailing lists doing s= ome
> > header rewriting which will break email bounces via the mailing l= ist to
> > the lab.
> >
> > I think Ali is currently investigating, but I'm sending the e= mail 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 is= n't being mangled for the reports failing DMARC? Example:
> ht= tps://inbox.dpdk.org/test-report/20230208081905.C6CB9600AB@dpdk-ubuntu.dpdk= lab.iol.unh.edu/
>
> Would it also be possible to switch the format/content-type of these e= mails 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<mailto:lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
> https://www.iol.unh.edu
> +1-603-674-2755 (m)
> [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIor= K4xlKa1qM3IJKocZErE7ywuQuw_cfMEDW_tlU6Dw8dHUTWPjdawcJawE6HcYf7_JfXJnr9fvVJI= ]<https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Lavoie
> Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies
> 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824
> lylavoie@iol= .unh.edu<mailto:lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
> https://www.iol.unh.edu
> +1-603-674-2755 (m)
> [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIor= K4xlKa1qM3IJKocZErE7ywuQuw_cfMEDW_tlU6Dw8dHUTWPjdawcJawE6HcYf7_JfXJnr9fvVJI= ]<https://www.iol.unh.edu/>
>







--
Lincoln Lavoie
Prin= cipal Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, = Durham, NH 03824
+1-603-674-= 2755 (m)

<= /div>
--00000000000078f1d505f5dca8cb--