[Cake] cake for net-next 4.8

[Neil Shepperd]

Grr, looks like things are still getting spam-marked for me. I'll have to
reopen the report with gmail... In the mean time, I suppose we'll have to
keep fiddling with DKIM or turn off ipv6 again.

Damnit, so close.

On 4 October 2016 at 12:09, Dave Täht <dave at taht.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 10/3/16 2:17 PM, Neil Shepperd wrote:
> > Gmail spam team got back to me; they have apparently "fixed the
> > problem", which I guess means messages here should stop being marked as
> > spam soon. Because gmail's spam filters are top secret business, I
> > couldn't tell you anything else :)
>
> It is great to have friends (in places high and low). Thank you!
>
> That said, I almost, but not quite, got the dkim stuff working the other
> day - not that I can intuit that was the source of the problem!
>
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 at 17:10 Dave Täht <dave at taht.net
> > <mailto:dave at taht.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 9/30/16 1:37 PM, Neil Shepperd wrote:
> >     > Disabling ipv6 (at least in the mail server, in outgoing
> direction) is
> >     > probably the easiest option...
> >
> >     It looks like the simplest thing I could do to allow inbound while
> >     stopping outbound ipv6 would be to:
> >
> >     /etc/postfix/main.cf <http://main.cf>:
> >         smtp_bind_address6 = ::1
> >
> >
> >     > I see on most messages here DKIM-Signature headers apparently from
> >     > gmail: "v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com
> >     <http://gmail.com>
> >     > <http://gmail.com>; s=20120113;". These signatures are failing
> because
> >     > of the added message footer. No sign of a DKIM-Signature
> >     > for lists.bufferbloat.net <http://lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >     <http://lists.bufferbloat.net>. You'd need to
> >     > set that up in the list MTA.
> >
> >     Honestly my "email-fu" has declined considerably in recent years.
> >     Despite the apparent simplicity of this idea, my brain just crashed
> >     multiple times on setting it up with postfix + mailman 2.
> >
> >     And thank you for poking so deeply into this, I was A) really
> annoyed by
> >     the bloat-list-as-spam thing and B) clueless.
> >
> >     > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 at 15:42 Dave Täht <dave at taht.net
> >     <mailto:dave at taht.net>
> >     > <mailto:dave at taht.net <mailto:dave at taht.net>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     On 9/30/16 1:02 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >     >     > Neil Shepperd <nshepperd at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:nshepperd at gmail.com> <mailto:nshepperd at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:nshepperd at gmail.com>>>
> >     >     writes:
> >     >     >
> >     >     >> I think I have now accumulated enough spam/nonspam
> >     classified emails
> >     >     >> to make a statistically signification observation: it seems
> >     like all
> >     >     >> emails classified as spam from these lists were send from
> ipv6:
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> SPF: PASS with IP 2600:3c03:0:0:f03c:91ff:fe61:86ce
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> All emails from bufferbloat.net <http://bufferbloat.net>
> >     <http://bufferbloat.net> lists
> >     >     are failing DKIM (because of the
> >     >     >> mailing list footer breaking the DKIM signature) which
> >     might be worth
> >     >     >> fixing, and failing DMARC because all mailing lists fails
> DMARC
> >     >     >> (however google does not have a strict DMARC policy so that
> >     shouldn't
> >     >     >> matter, I hope).
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> By the way, it's not just you, either. I have emails from
> >     others on
> >     >     >> these lists in my spam folder.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> The distinguishing factor seems to be whether the email was
> >     sent from
> >     >     >> the lists.bufferbloat.net <http://lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >     <http://lists.bufferbloat.net> ipv6
> >     >     address. Unless this address
> >     >     >> corresponds to some kind of tunnel broker possibly also
> used by
> >     >     >> spammers, I can only assume this is some kind of bug (after
> >     all, it
> >     >     >> was spf validated so the address shouldn't matter at that
> >     point?).
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Indeed, gmail requires extra measures for IPv6:
> >     >     > https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 (scroll down to
> >     >     "Additional
> >     >     > guidelines for IPv6").
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Fixing DKIM might be worthwhile :)
> >     >
> >     >     But it passes the spf check?? And the reverse lookup is
> correct.
> >     >
> >     >     How about I just disable ipv6?
> >     >
> >     >     Have no idea why dkim doesn't work.
> >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > -Toke
> >     >     > _______________________________________________
> >     >     > Cake mailing list
> >     >     > Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >     <mailto:Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >     <mailto:Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Cake at lists.
> bufferbloat.net>>
> >     >     > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
> >     >     >
> >     >     _______________________________________________
> >     >     Cake mailing list
> >     >     Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >     <mailto:Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Cake at lists.
> bufferbloat.net>>
> >     >     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
> >     >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake/attachments/20161020/1e4507e2/attachment.html>