Re: [tlug] Note to server admins: you're breaking DKIM

[Chris <chris@example.com>]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:00:01PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> if it doesn't verify it SHOULD NOT[1] be removed[2]

This isn't the first time I've disagreed with an RFC.

In this case, the signature is GUARANTEED to fail verification.  Adding the
TLUG footer breaks it.  So ...

> and SHOULD NOT be treated differently from no signature at all[3].

... removing the signature and the TLUG server is in compliance with the intent,
if not the letter, of the RFC.

> spamcheckers that don't GAF about their users' mail are everywhere.

You know me -- if it's never going to work, then there's no point in having
it in there.

More troubling is the MTA advertising that it accepts SSLv3, though.  I'd
volunteer to go over the server with a fine-toothed comb, but I walked away from
TLUG server admin duties over a decade ago and I really don't want the
responsibility at this point in my life :)

> I-learned-HOWTO-BOFH-from-my-little-sister-ly y'rs,

I-learned-HOWTO-BOFH-from-stephan@example.com's-BOFH-writeups,

-- 

-- Chris
   GPG key fingerprint A582 1BB2 6E72 49BF D4BA  25B4 E40C 37F9 199C 6964

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature