Re: [OT] Regular DKIM issues on this ML (was: Re: why !oh why Debian and application list)

[l0f4r0@tuta.io]

Hi,

13 juin 2020 à 21:05 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net:

> Hi.
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:01:59PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote:
>
>> 13 juin 2020 à 17:12 de recoverym4n@enotuniq.net:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 06:10:15PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's see.
>> >>
>> >> >From what I saw this should fail DKIM test.
>> >>
>> >> And, for the good measure:
>> >>
>> >> >From: this is not a valid RFC-822 header
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok, clearly I don't have any problem with DKIM on this list.
>> >
>> Ok let's see for me as well:
>>
>> >From my point of view
>>
>> >From: l0f4r0
>>
>> l0f4r0
>>
> Your e-mail passed DKIM test on my MTA with flying colors.
>
> Try that base64-encoded html thing next.
>
It was already base64 encoded, see below:

--------------79Bu5A16qPEYcVIZL@tutanota
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: base64

PGRpdj4xMyBqdWluIDIwMjAgw6AgMTc6MTIgZGUgcmVjb3ZlcnltNG5AZW5vdHVuaXEubmV0Ojxicj
48L2Rpdj48YmxvY2txdW90ZSBjbGFzcz0idHV0YW5vdGFfcXVvdGUiPjxkaXY+T24gU2F0LCBKdW4g
MTMsIDIwMjAgYXQgMDY6MTA6MTVQTSArMDMwMCwgUmVjbyB3cm90ZTo8YnI+PC9kaXY+PGJsb2NrcX
VvdGU+PGRpdj5MZXQncyBzZWUuPGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+Jmd0O0Zyb20g
d2hhdCBJIHNhdyB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBmYWlsIERLSU0gdGVzdC48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC
9kaXY+PGRpdj5BbmQsIGZvciB0aGUgZ29vZCBtZWFzdXJlOjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rp
dj48ZGl2PiZndDtGcm9tOiB0aGlzIGlzIG5vdCBhIHZhbGlkIFJGQy04MjIgaGVhZGVyPGJyPjwvZG
l2PjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pk9rLCBjbGVhcmx5IEkgZG9uJ3QgaGF2
ZSBhbnkgcHJvYmxlbSB3aXRoIERLSU0gb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0Ljxicj48L2Rpdj48L2Jsb2NrcXVvdG
U+PGRpdj5PayBsZXQncyBzZWUgZm9yIG1lIGFzIHdlbGw6PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGJyPjwvZGl2
PjxkaXY+Jmd0O0Zyb20gbXkgcG9pbnQgb2Ygdmlldzxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZG
l2PiZndDtGcm9tOiBsMGY0cjA8YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5sMGY0cjA8YnI+
PC9kaXY+

--------------79Bu5A16qPEYcVIZL@tutanota--

l0f4r0