Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f3d0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a16csp3732005pxv; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTWQmQGqenXs3K4zoQn+LHW12SEz2WU/34yWw5PAhOBZxpXmtrv4bZEFtqyA3tQ8tlqV8m X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:42cb:: with SMTP id i11mr29292488edc.56.1624904629005; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1624904628; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=cH6cWdBeaqchB16vm9hPFqoHAsB6bIn9ZFklscgXOny7ybGtEfCVGilt+9GmBXKCfa BmU8B4/XtCGvuL5DGmsDqUCk5iZP7Mv4G3jrzWPo3ihzClsuvohwXz+K8tsQn09UNeqn nSJBHMeoGA2/eIrTu9bfcMsAcSyn7A6GlKdVFVSReDuj0n//a/RqwhEZ3CNOfN86uHgl BHz7jZJL1rZZP9I/oopkOfojQJPsbqz7F8pzA4jJCP+xMKJJNr9rZgGvf2pzNeF2eyhJ qAHVeMJfnMhSQK/uqGqlmo8v651EEAiNatBfaTPkFqpVtP1JxLttPE87TXdkkmoglaV7 vmsQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=Ob1ZHav5uavIzlGrL5ARt8FdnMewCD3S6Gj+5TTamYE=; b=VQiFbepN14IZJjtKWa/6wvu/zQ5f2sx5x/vvig9Ze29sOxtUxKVmOCkOhgd4DZaoG4 KhFeO95zwMGGk4euDLIvXDIGGfSrjQIrddVoYzY0yLDyam1MMEyFDN92VTTPEmFADSu8 t0rZ7PoulxYr75qwz5swD5sej61aBClpgWZ0zDl99I7/4nd53T2qDEJp3NhkrGZDo3si iOPjWFcUZMfGINXUSaMNufiL31msSn5eo8xUpR0qnl2FBupKYp0IJixnMI8IwZEHt353 Q5wrUFeUPNoltYoYKYRxgS/yuXyeO4Cg5PWQj/lQy/WFbcRDDIL/p6B9mhbc5RooxSXJ Ov0g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bh21si2877860ejb.428.2021.06.28.11.23.24; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234640AbhF1O5b (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:57:31 -0400 Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:58349 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234382AbhF1OnS (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:43:18 -0400 Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C8C298D0016; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:40:51 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: James Bottomley , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-mm@kvack.org - limping on a backup Message-ID: <20210628144051.GM4058@kvack.org> References: <20210622145954.GA4058@kvack.org> <214c41fae1f1b148e5b04a58c1b018fb091d7e83.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20210625171259.GG4058@kvack.org> <6f309c63f5b7be968ae679e81ab959db05681e8a.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20210625192607.GH4058@kvack.org> <20210628134607.GA4604@ziepe.ca> <20210628135352.GL4058@kvack.org> <20210628142659.GB4604@ziepe.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210628142659.GB4604@ziepe.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:26:59AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > Isn't a 7-bit conversion what I pointed at last time we talked about > this? I changed several options in postfix last time this was raised, but as nobody ever provided a test case, I had no way of knowing if it worked or not. Personally, I think DKIM provides very little value considering that a good chunk of the spam that goes by has valid DKIM signatures, not to mention that it doesn't help with modern phishing attempts much either. > DKIM assumes a "modern" mail system, there should not be 7bit > conversions in the mail pipeline. Anyone sending DKIM needs to be 8 > bit clean. "Be strict in what you send, and be liberal in what you receive." DKIM makes assumptions about the mail transport layer that are not true. If the signatures had been applied on content *after* the quoted printable conversion, this would never have been an issue. DKIM is a poorly done spec that ignores decades of that philosophy at the IETF. And even if a DKIM signature passes, that's still not enough to trust the resulting email. All it does is ensure that a small subset of valid emails get dropped on the floor. This doesn't seem like an overall win. -ben -- "Thought is the essence of where you are now."