Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Broken DomainKey .. or dead project?

To: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: Broken DomainKey .. or dead project?
From: "Erik A. Espinoza" <erik.espinoza@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:01:20 -0700
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=thScN+Z40SfLl5z+Dc7ucBs5Isn9v+CLnYX/KPn2yaROiLf08blEO7GfNro62BnHfh/FnHdDcQPVpuOP3JCuglEjPCluT1G75fOQZTB09Oj9JlXb3mEMZuJt2f5/X54stk1RV/fL7vxC+66UsuwQ61oOFoscBl5Kh9q6j/kup+Y=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XkRT3YD9ospcqiIMLbWfBsgHnXjglsRdC/RicBUNMdaaz/LRI/4gEnJSkOqhPb6zS9w0JWJnSbLfr96P+nyE156oaknsf+5Fncc0JWI5P+nJhAeOm4cuXCLH+5nqv74JUpUNMbyX6uah/v2Ff78+K/ANGrOZa8QlKsx/43okVCU=
Domainkey-status: good (test mode)
In-reply-to: <20070405005159.GK27526@aleut.local>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
References: <b86db13f0704011331m4135c427vc934ced0d8b64120@mail.gmail.com> <b86db13f0704011429x17f3e0b1w903861f725380af5@mail.gmail.com> <20070401225748.GA6359@discworld.dyndns.org> <1175514940.31108.92.camel@castor.taos-it.nl> <b86db13f0704041207p6b6c548ai617ff192c7d27414@mail.gmail.com> <p06240603c239aa94b54f@128.163.18.106> <20070404211936.GI22829@c-76-18-79-168.hsd1.nm.comcast.net> <p06240602c239ea464439@norm.jmatt.net> <b86db13f0704041714j25402a8o1e029c59fa40b29b@mail.gmail.com> <20070405005159.GK27526@aleut.local>
Sorry, that should have been dktest.

dktest is a binary that ships with libdomainkeys to test signed e-mail.

Erik

On 4/4/07, Kyle Wheeler <kyle-qmail@memoryhole.net> wrote:
On Wednesday, April  4 at 05:14 PM, quoth Erik A. Espinoza:
> With a very loose DKVERIFY string, I have e-mails that qmail-dk claims
> have bad sigs but dkverify claims they are okay.

What is dkverify? Is it perhaps a tool I could abuse into replacing
qmail-dk?

Anyway, given that qmail-dk (even patched) does not appear to honor
the h= tags, I would expect that such messages would be "failed" by
qmail-dk but not by something slightly more intelligent.

~Kyle
--
Man cannot live by bread alone. He must have peanut butter.
                                                          -- Bill Cosby



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>