linux-kernel - Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADWXX89jMiTp-Nz887tv+6YwWkrWF8qYfpuTkmk2OE3_SqeGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:53:07 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     post@...ffenvogel.de
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, zbr@...emap.net
Subject: Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes

[ This is not about your patch series per se, only about your email settings ]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Steffen Vogel <post@...ffenvogel.de> wrote:
>
> This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel.
> I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and
> satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem.

Sadly, your DKIM setup is wrong, causing all the emails to be marked
as spam when they go through a mailing list.

Your DKIM header looks like this:

  DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=steffenvogel.de;
          s=2017; t=1540764601;
h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:
          message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:
          content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
          in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;

and the problem with that is the "sender" field in there.

A good mailing list will not change the contents of your email, or
most of the other headers, but it *will* set the sender field to the
mailing list.

End result: the DKIM signature is guaranteed to fail after the email
has gone through a mailing list.

In other words, putting the sender field as part of the DKIM-checked
headers is just wrong. It's a somewhat common mistake, but it's still
wrong. I wonder where people get their setups from, because I think
there is some DKIM guide on the internet that is actively spreading
this bad behavior.

You do have a few other oddities in there (the duplication of the
common fields), but they shouldn't matter.

                 Linus