From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 03 12:12:53 2021 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Jan 2021 17:12:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38510 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kw6w1-0007AF-43 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:12:53 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:50040) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kw6vy-0007A5-A1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:12:51 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54982) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kw6vy-0007QZ-51 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:12:50 -0500 Received: from che.mayfirst.org ([2001:470:1:116::7]:45529) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kw6vw-0004ve-GH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:12:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1609693966; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=OlIymSZ9/DdXtGmZHKPI0cT5IhglYBbwgLxMPoGhcAo=; b=247J0I0+i5jxTh4BJbEmsPYYOyFArM3JDqMtiBdd1bcXWFh2OxlX1EcogsqM/9ODUhpAc tg1pRHYJOhEn4uwDQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1609693966; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=OlIymSZ9/DdXtGmZHKPI0cT5IhglYBbwgLxMPoGhcAo=; b=RTsP8i1gBHLTzKR3e9qzND3gilyR4Hk464X3XpAkPrjiJ6oE0jaU2yc+SkIgrx5lsJKbY F7fK51+vQT5H4zE7U3m35eNoOGnCIFJN7jwiBuujMoBgiPg6UFdSJDYqOaOKeHCLZwUFEwe IPB9zQxwTdivo7NJZ5joY59ooOR7H6uXIZZymendaKcgnwD7kiyMZkC+swxYSZc17S664n9 nmGP2V/+5Nmu4QmIpdwllkJjnzRG7dU1HJJpQEbEVtHUPhy7V/mWAoDqMNUMPMv8jMNehdH HSrxO3mKp8GNSvikEGAzh5XqK8EBDaBDGNAqEFolHM6ONNod1CDAe8YUxDiw== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 082E7F9A5 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 2021 12:12:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B72682021E; Sun, 3 Jan 2021 12:12:43 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:12:42 -0500 Message-ID: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:470:1:116::7; envelope-from=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; helo=che.mayfirst.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I've been using emacs as my MUA for years. When I upgraded from emacs 26.3 to emacs 27.1, i noticed that message-forward-as-mime now defaults to nil. I prefer to forward as MIME generally, so i set it back to t. The only downside to forwarding as MIME is the inclusion of some headers that the received message has accumulated in transit, which might have privacy-sensitive implications. I've been using message-forward-ignored-headers for a while now to trim out headers like Received and Delivered-To when forwarding. But as of 27.1, message-forward-ignored-headers doesn't work when forwarding as MIME. indeed, the help text for the variable now says >> This variable is only consulted when forwarding "normally", not when >> forwarding as MIME or the like. But this is a regression from 26.3. I'd expect it to keep working. Please restore the functionality so that i can automatically strip privacy-sensitive headers when forwarding. Thanks, --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCX/H7CwAKCRDEDyVUMvKB DzsAAP9SL8eMP5O9goA6MVgug6u7oHIKI1sdOVf48AClOdzJgQEA39tP1Ac8aiM3 xs3JlCQuXNYSYIbcCg7JQtwfkmolCAc= =dVQE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 05 08:07:04 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Jan 2021 13:07:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41068 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kwm3D-0002Td-Qi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 08:07:04 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]:52419) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kwm3C-0002T5-93 for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 08:07:02 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a6so2973619wmc.2 for <45631@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 05:07:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9RSd02BgP4vG7QQIYaNGRt4bqtzKFzJDwyVSWqc0Mg4=; b=B0+ilj17XNk3uwDnefWUW6AE1wqXwQUmF7qoIDV9Y+D5p9aK2ev49AXhXeinYhKVKJ mOLJJweCuskoh0+a/0jXfcwp0q84pc2VHCZrhhYITXDgDHwtHtmv4xRPU2rT1nKvhbrD fW7VInbP+IGMssCIoQbGrMKTFLtqydFJ/9qx1IlmtIuXoshwL4ebAQCJ5KPtUOBdTWT8 F2NqKq+7+W8kZfgUs0cfQQTIB+NUIORfT6liEsDwrxDy3s4czkzQdNef1cZRiY87CqnH fFc66sXwLXKmcCveTS6GWjgLxpsoiSnuxwuorKbS9L9cBQyZLrMNhyT8ToAK+JD8XAS2 7VTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9RSd02BgP4vG7QQIYaNGRt4bqtzKFzJDwyVSWqc0Mg4=; b=oE8Podt0mFHUypAFH5QeI/cHNOVmIMbLOSrMzfA8qtCs2bkUZFmC5r9iM3pRTWGwuk LGPPSSqzTKoS2ggAZF6zE3cSepf06tONCOQyQR4X1aX0oQTF94WKfInlRmoeFdUH/XJt 9hgQnHbkKB0fnFrlT1YSlcC15Bo3dxxQI0AGMzsPo7rCLJk5J2mc0Ja/qZakXyJdOBfT k2oIKjzIMYtDVRzw9QVajcGMjwbqtBmAI+Pm48aLnSlgI8bLbjrsfImrnpy48jZlKTpn Ej7HyLuiotdTdCYs7PssTkxjI73jCNdR2uI0oNuwBGdalrizFp1hc9pm6GrHobDgP639 hUEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531CdGtIiMtlGLNmuYy1hYKgxkJQxSTJjgTkcYDZM1Mpem8vhwqQ yZ/JB4GRd7B+hYu7jj18w/oBSSWAo6w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9B2YwbeQq53+jRp7CK6ISYP2FSj6+7bQrnQ2v5x8w7++tU8vbtL/HwjGWD/4jHOKYZl+eOg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b3c3:: with SMTP id c186mr3469305wmf.169.1609852016042; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 05:06:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from rltb ([2a01:e34:ecfc:a861:69b6:6aaf:dbd3:8964]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s20sm3826420wmj.46.2021.01.05.05.06.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 Jan 2021 05:06:55 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Pluim To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:12:42 -0500") References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:06:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > I've been using emacs as my MUA for years. > > When I upgraded from emacs 26.3 to emacs 27.1, i noticed that > message-forward-as-mime now defaults to nil. I prefer to forward as > MIME generally, so i set it back to t. > > The only downside to forwarding as MIME is the inclusion of some headers > that the received message has accumulated in transit, which might have > privacy-sensitive implications. I've been using > message-forward-ignored-headers for a while now to trim out headers like > Received and Delivered-To when forwarding. > > But as of 27.1, message-forward-ignored-headers doesn't work when > forwarding as MIME. indeed, the help text for the variable now says > > >> This variable is only consulted when forwarding "normally", not when > >> forwarding as MIME or the like. > > But this is a regression from 26.3. I'd expect it to keep working. > > Please restore the functionality so that i can automatically strip > privacy-sensitive headers when forwarding. I=CA=BCve compared emacs-26 and emacs-27, and the code is the same, which leads me to suspect something different in your configuration. 'message-forward-ignored-headers' is applied even when forwarding as MIME (despite the docstring), except when 'message-forward-show-mml' is nil, or when it=CA=BCs 'best' and the forwarded message is either signed or encrypted. Or maybe you=CA=BCre forwarding from inside the *Article* buffer, I think Gnus behaves differently then. Robert From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 05 23:12:47 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2021 04:12:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43194 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kx0Bj-0001Kw-Ep for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 23:12:47 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=38477 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kx0Bi-0001Ko-8B for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 23:12:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1609906365; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=Y3JvVl4cpcAF8xxRijMMy627fsS3vRlPrrHAcbNTOsI=; b=4IfO4qKQ7sppX5W0vfMfjBvJ25v7dJq9uGH6uMytrNjAQPWLCH0jFsNuLRc8YtdyKLFXt LfO/2X0uLct9L1BCg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1609906365; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=Y3JvVl4cpcAF8xxRijMMy627fsS3vRlPrrHAcbNTOsI=; b=Y0EqJAO1kW7KFoUsb602vTsrH3MZs67I32Toh9MhJgBy/VFT/MiLH2cOcKWmp8/4dYl2o dkMTB3Dkxov4oJH/mukXo2EozCBxkZj83/Ezm+d0RnBb0cb9sGcv4RLmjG4zqNo6orXPSWg 7Dr8j9m3bvpevkdBYXjpTF+eIzxpI+u2vYcIBamcQzMV6OPJcv90NsS72+xKkLkYLG/AdPu IY40rJ76RoS/ZJCoHjyLuIOUvceWoXuKeptgpt/zVjHzy7QN5yq4+Y3VSYq2dKKkiErIMZR 0T78sZGveQrs1T+xJe8pNXwSOMEi5MR1D7Stf+BlhU/e8BTg9JVov0bE9Njw== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59F5AF9A6; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 23:12:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83BB52084F; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 18:25:19 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Robert Pluim Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 18:25:18 -0500 Message-ID: <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Robert-- Thanks for taking a look into this! On Tue 2021-01-05 14:06:54 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote: > Iʼve compared emacs-26 and emacs-27, and the code is the same, which > leads me to suspect something different in your > configuration. 'messag [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: fifthhorseman.net] 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Robert-- Thanks for taking a look into this! On Tue 2021-01-05 14:06:54 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote: > I=CA=BCve compared emacs-26 and emacs-27, and the code is the same, which > leads me to suspect something different in your > configuration. 'message-forward-ignored-headers' is applied even when > forwarding as MIME (despite the docstring) hm, the docstring change was recent, apparently in response to #27715 : https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=3D57fbf0cf7bd4a85f2a= d6f14aa92494545106b887 that's why i assumed there had been a change. > except when 'message-forward-show-mml' is nil, or when it=CA=BCs 'best' a= nd > the forwarded message is either signed or encrypted. Hm, i'm using 'best' for message-forward-show-mml (as the default) and yes, it looks like the issue is that i just noticed it happening when i went to forward a signed message. Maybe it wasn't an issue before because i wasn't forwarding a signed message? I no longer have emacs 26.3 installed so i can't check that handily right now. The message headers (outside of the cryptographic envelope) do *not* affect the digital signature, so they ought to be safe to trim out without invalidating the digital signature. These are the message headers that i want to trim. > Or maybe you=CA=BCre forwarding from inside the *Article* buffer, I think > Gnus behaves differently then. I'm using notmuch-emacs, not gnus, but it reuses a lot of the existing emacs MUA codebase, which is why i'm reporting it here. Do you have a suggestion for how i can apply message-forward-ignored-headers to a signed message? I only want it to apply to headers that aren't covered by the digital signature anyway. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCX/T1XwAKCRDEDyVUMvKB D8i2AP934n1bVOrZ2Zk6bDwAou9wJeAteJtBoJqITFyHEuTtUAD8DkhbSWg/EoMo I715BbhXriECo3VJRD8RYL6SqXx3cAs= =4yZq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 06 05:31:36 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2021 10:31:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43517 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kx66K-0004zT-HO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 05:31:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com ([209.85.221.42]:41139) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kx66I-0004zG-Kr for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 05:31:35 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id a12so1928326wrv.8 for <45631@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 02:31:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0yIUn1uJPtkOQSv5w+9RcksfuJzYhlGAZryws6T4qM0=; b=gWMFD2iannOR1+AzG9JAWEOowqIgy8pvJjReLDia3f4eWmk2W76xmr1w4rJ7Oxu9ZH Z0F16geQtIJx+s7KFix6JgEEilVVX06zUjmBXE5DBFxzz5DJnl5tpEdyYiPnMOWxcXZI FpmuazBpDA54w6Q5LeHwINwQQflOIkHJTaV6eGLcgbvdaD2KS7Z91zYf4nCqjLxq01e4 XfMmvywVvsHdcw25+qfXYeXLuZrjnlgC4+y8q0/Ic58lBqtqspzPQ7VGs82VHCTMV0Gk +pBXQfqi6+W6ur4+9i3ysFg7+G9DlLUsxPC2BXvfwcRNnSdszu2sMSQ+YgA+yyY1gSJY b+NA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0yIUn1uJPtkOQSv5w+9RcksfuJzYhlGAZryws6T4qM0=; b=I39uuSz5oiYjdLDL2RbDWotEiEHTG2F0kSDZVA9hFyXWnUpiM7qdo7rvqRGjEVC3t9 H8ZgrA0vTC8HCCoyQfWdrPlHzls7ZbZ8AhdHU8qU8fzLywUd0garrjd82emUswLjUY97 L7APnWdq/NFvbrUIcH+v+JIdxsbBXliwN8D8/p+XTecl4jZRSXg4E9jt4sKtFL7bj/jx JQKbjQS1ihD7XmsTH+7b8nrOkyR8OygUWqxwwed5x0pRf+LrGo1AcDep8nhFpDHRmZxK Duc4esaiOX8NfJp3WXL2yncyu2EwzNqPv5fGzsaZ7F7N2ckdU+3S7E3U9zUU3RO+Qm5I 9fBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533+eUTTZmN1aDHHvQLcoIhg/B32TLIVp6u50hh2MDkv0MvBs7+K x6/RM/E2LTzOirRVodL1cVSAkxkta+k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1WYtxcVH47gPVmNzxCuig7iM363wAUeRDVyeK36Ov5eLW7dgFsD0rXTlpHB/gqRzwy4gttw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:10c4:: with SMTP id b4mr3742514wrx.170.1609929088422; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 02:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rltb ([2a01:e34:ecfc:a861:69b6:6aaf:dbd3:8964]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm2626633wrv.97.2021.01.06.02.31.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 02:31:27 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Pluim To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 11:31:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Tue, 05 Jan 2021 18:25:18 -0500") Message-ID: <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Hi Robert-- > > Thanks for taking a look into this! > > On Tue 2021-01-05 14:06:54 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote: >> I=CA=BCve compared emacs-26 and emacs-27, and the code is the same, which >> leads me to suspect something different in your >> configuration. 'message-forward-ignored-headers' is applied even when >> forwarding as MIME (despite the docstring) > > hm, the docstring change was recent, apparently in response to #27715 : > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=3D57fbf0cf7bd4a85f= 2ad6f14aa92494545106b887 > > that's why i assumed there had been a change. > Documentation lags implementation, as always :-) >> except when 'message-forward-show-mml' is nil, or when it=CA=BCs 'best' = and >> the forwarded message is either signed or encrypted. > > Hm, i'm using 'best' for message-forward-show-mml (as the default) and > yes, it looks like the issue is that i just noticed it happening when > i went to forward a signed message. Maybe it wasn't an issue before > because i wasn't forwarding a signed message? I no longer have emacs > 26.3 installed so i can't check that handily right now. > > The message headers (outside of the cryptographic envelope) do *not* > affect the digital signature, so they ought to be safe to trim out > without invalidating the digital signature. These are the message > headers that i want to trim. > >> Or maybe you=CA=BCre forwarding from inside the *Article* buffer, I think >> Gnus behaves differently then. > > I'm using notmuch-emacs, not gnus, but it reuses a lot of the existing > emacs MUA codebase, which is why i'm reporting it here. > > Do you have a suggestion for how i can apply > message-forward-ignored-headers to a signed message? I only want it to > apply to headers that aren't covered by the digital signature anyway. I think setting message-forward-show-mml to t will do what you want, then message won't bother to check if the message is signed/encrypted, and will thus apply message-forward-ignored-headers. Robert From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 10:18:42 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2021 15:18:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54675 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kycUM-0000ea-1v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:18:42 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:42456) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kycUH-0000e3-Hp for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:18:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vO+11bGlNwzn/un/FiRKooPMRqwlZb64wtamgfD+aRc=; b=TRu/ZOtra2zS9HO7eaXeesDs6O mLL1N0AAa+V5o1UzlmH8qKPmo8Gjc/Dakgs4G8GMy3SXxwGt/FDaM6oVI3aD3gVV8zEmuRJOuR6pN qqFOtGnFsyvWVEY06UFG5vNiXDo+QvdNpUt14y1ip0XvdhDdxbb76oNln0YwUL6xpeEc=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kycU4-000858-RO; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:18:30 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Robert Pluim Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> X-Now-Playing: The Durutti Column's _The Guitar and Other Machines_: "Bordeaux Sequence" Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:18:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> (Robert Pluim's message of "Wed, 06 Jan 2021 11:31:25 +0100") Message-ID: <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Robert Pluim writes: > I think setting message-forward-show-mml to t will do what you want, > then message won't bother to check if the message is signed/encrypted, > and will thus apply message-forward-ignored-headers. Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: 45631@debbugs.gnu.org, Daniel Kahn Gillmor X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Robert Pluim writes: > I think setting message-forward-show-mml to t will do what you want, > then message won't bother to check if the message is signed/encrypted, > and will thus apply message-forward-ignored-headers. Looking over that mess again, I think my analysis of when that variable is used, and when it's supposed to be used, was wrong. I've now make it respect that variable even if message-forward-show-mml is nil. The only instance it won't be used is if message-forward-show-mml is `best', and we're forwarding an encrypted/signed message. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 10:18:45 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2021 15:18:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54678 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kycUP-0000eq-Ch for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:18:45 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:42472) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kycUM-0000eD-0Y for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:18:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WYPe3Ty8ppwudsWL6JoOGC8RsCuKlvHLxb/G61HknYE=; b=jsVNkcKhGZzpt86ODWTIjh6ru3 dRBy64KmTxtDw0YEccnuAwxiQDwqXjT0d+bEznMauRzpCJySfurDTkuTWcvpfbn+xWK7JLCvvWCGx uAeZjjues/FaVsMQbpT2Inphksgib4otEtC69dmWqz0SK2PzKIzQz1p4JJKJfHpIzCDE=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kycUE-00085I-FG for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:18:36 +0100 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:18:33 +0100 Message-Id: <87lfd0q0qe.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #45631 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 45631 fixed close 45631 28.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 45631 fixed close 45631 28.1 quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 12:25:48 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2021 17:25:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54831 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kyeTM-00078p-L9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:25:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46440) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kyeTL-00078X-Ax for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:25:47 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50417) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyeTF-0005AX-Ui; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:25:41 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4403 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kyeT9-0001uR-Pa; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:25:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 19:25:44 +0200 Message-Id: <83zh1gg0vb.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Lars Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:18:23 +0100) Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, 45631@debbugs.gnu.org, dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:18:23 +0100 > Cc: 45631@debbugs.gnu.org, Daniel Kahn Gillmor > > Robert Pluim writes: > > > I think setting message-forward-show-mml to t will do what you want, > > then message won't bother to check if the message is signed/encrypted, > > and will thus apply message-forward-ignored-headers. > > Looking over that mess again, I think my analysis of when that variable > is used, and when it's supposed to be used, was wrong. I've now make it > respect that variable even if message-forward-show-mml is nil. Should this be fixed on the emacs-27 branch? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 10 20:44:48 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2021 01:44:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55277 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kymGF-0001oG-RV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:44:48 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=48707 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kymGE-0001o8-8M for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:44:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1610329485; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=/Mxt78DMJzB2dQljihgA07oNXpm80wT3SSGrkEBbF/o=; b=cNB9Wx80W8NOJv18z9FjhVm1xGTpxNKry8vJJLQW42k4m/0/bMrD6L17SWfKINzXFkcrD o9vVhoFz+YyFyBsBQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1610329485; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=/Mxt78DMJzB2dQljihgA07oNXpm80wT3SSGrkEBbF/o=; b=RyxJmfYvdPQMH1tkkAf2O03Hkb2V7d3YmGNQ8+ewRAynToOjjkz1CVV1IEUpvFrt/UovH FWd7XTeZ5WwZmzDtWZ30OgrroPsL9uFSMJln5PhKcX2EHxPH15iOVBk4SE1i939UWlTc8LM vJ5xy8hMaqA6VTqW+NscbyroX0QLFQa5TwBdU8hmIccKHGhYFCH8cXEUMyuE29XBj4gsgbo Wx56HZBY9kaiJsrYqrQFqUxbRaCcf0M21ZIfbQldbbl7kOivtuLfDMLlDEA0zs8IhBwYfSE vTiHnQrz7QXmVDU1Kusa4k2TUvhiAXjed/93YJzcmNAEpB9ScEVTNY3COAzw== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [64.234.56.87]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE7BFF9A5; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:44:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2030F2008C; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:41:23 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Robert Pluim Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:41:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Lars-- On Sun 2021-01-10 16:18:23 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Looking over that mess again, I think my analysis of when that variable > is used, and when it's supposed to be used, was wrong. I've now m [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hi Lars-- On Sun 2021-01-10 16:18:23 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Looking over that mess again, I think my analysis of when that variable > is used, and when it's supposed to be used, was wrong. I've now make it > respect that variable even if message-forward-show-mml is nil. The only > instance it won't be used is if message-forward-show-mml is `best', and > we're forwarding an encrypted/signed message. Thanks for taking a look at this. I'm trying to understand the rationale for *not* trimming headers when message-forward-show-mml is `best' and we're forwarding an encrypted/signed message. If the headers being trimmed are strictly in the header section of the forwarded message, then they aren't in the cryptographic envelope [0], which means that they aren't implicated in either a standard PGP/MIME or S/MIME signature or encryption. Is the expectation that headers of internal parts of the message are being trimmed (in which case, they might be implicated in the signature or encryption)? or, is there some situation i'm missing where they might have an impact on the cryptographic structure? --dkg [0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dkg-lamps-e2e-mail-guidance-00.html has definitions of "cryptographic envelope" and other hopefully-useful concepts and terminology. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCX/t0ggAKCRDEDyVUMvKB D8TFAPsGQ7abN8L4nQykhDwKoBS6frl/YVa51mCuyZBRzTg8QgD7BOFc38bA2O18 ssS4dbvZ64EU2OBFMqnaNhlLIISgtQI= =iU02 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 11 10:04:26 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2021 15:04:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57770 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kyyk5-0006jY-SK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:04:26 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:53902) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kyyk4-0006jI-2R for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:04:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2dnxHiL+MPoMaDa+457T8j/MoP2QRQsOaQy+eTMARRU=; b=hbI6hJDyoF8iXJecz9vF4iPBjV KZOfSLzqpe1VBNNDDcoZ0pFqs2znDVWgTxz7UnkESU04N33lT9d7D/JEVkCaNu3puijhOSJFVFeCL g3fJ6fQJhxyBWUWlXkjImtzZiCGbpTEe969fh6ytIX3Ilu6deMfg36Bu9UXJAzKb6dBc=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kyyjk-00083X-H4; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:04:15 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <83zh1gg0vb.fsf@gnu.org> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAD1BMVEWZmFdZNRefJBvT FQ3///9v0t8eAAAAAWJLR0QEj2jZUQAAAAd0SU1FB+UBCw4tCqpdENsAAAGbSURBVDjLZZSJkcMw CEXBaQBwAwY1kJX67205JF9xMuOYZwJ8QACAXJeYzV9MENcytzFOFPZysFGX6Qke9jH6Ivi0L0Lp IO0GRsVJ8LCPoQvI0z76AuVgTxe4OZjcXOBKqV/BNMHtSe6gHvoYvKsLk8H6CUx3YyvNvKoEfmv5 N1mwhwwvLWApg5SwGkELKKemu07NWwQBdywgstokrSVglfgf8cxpNocD9MqG2DuQXRAtMHiqCUCr PToUdk9KWAniU8A2awotgR3RYzc7sAXUzFG8DYRUYzQCeDTXIdqMEPVJMy/Bg/sLrfdMDWH78/pC kwTti8YkUcbWLdsQwC9wtZA8BgP1O/jI180crJUHF2iu5pEu2GabITtrfGSqKC/w5c1jox3+UElN sFlnIvGk/WtbAQ/ieqjX5zdBV+BzDgOGdoghCiLSHIao1Ewp2y0ulLU5cDmJPYfjtiLw3o61IfC7 HnPa8del10K/VnAuYXX5dwdp7rO1lwPNE0Deew7nmbF8TK+zpIbMSw4FrqPkOk7Y1rgDvMj9UPoH E0GBZX9haN4AAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6Y3JlYXRlADIwMjEtMDEtMTFUMTQ6NDU6MTArMDA6MDAidOsA AAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlmeQAyMDIxLTAxLTExVDE0OjQ1OjEwKzAwOjAwUylTvAAAAABJRU5E rkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Felix Da Housecat's _Kittenz and The Glitz_: "Madame Hollywood" Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:04:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83zh1gg0vb.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 10 Jan 2021 19:25:44 +0200") Message-ID: <87h7nnh5wd.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Looking over that mess again, I think my analysis of when that variable >> is used, and when it's supposed to be used, was wrong. I've now make it >> respect that variable even if message-forward-s [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: rpluim@gmail.com, 45631@debbugs.gnu.org, dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Looking over that mess again, I think my analysis of when that variable >> is used, and when it's supposed to be used, was wrong. I've now make it >> respect that variable even if message-forward-show-mml is nil. > > Should this be fixed on the emacs-27 branch? If it doesn't introduce any regressions, but my confidence here isn't exactly 100%... I think we should wait a few weeks before backporting, at least. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 11 10:09:33 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jan 2021 15:09:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57789 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kyyp3-0006sL-Lk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:09:33 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:54058) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kyyp2-0006s9-4j for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:09:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zXg04Ve+2IwTlX0lWA7IGWD7oCmPTqoS6J1G7DvTGps=; b=WvYn4bAv8/QKnEG1LyqaYM7sID K72wRVjGvbKZc+pZiqtNjpRuf+wuqftSJ4kIMFzaIis8ig3yJ8FOHVxhbo+nWNuOJzUrhfDOra81v 6Gyu0VXqltjNGsVY1YPaEhbx9cmPIPI7aLRKl/47peyym/9+YdxzKXxKvVb+3Gp/d5Z4=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kyyoq-00087L-82; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:09:25 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAD1BMVEWZmFdZNRefJBvT FQ3///9v0t8eAAAAAWJLR0QEj2jZUQAAAAd0SU1FB+UBCw4tCqpdENsAAAGbSURBVDjLZZSJkcMw CEXBaQBwAwY1kJX67205JF9xMuOYZwJ8QACAXJeYzV9MENcytzFOFPZysFGX6Qke9jH6Ivi0L0Lp IO0GRsVJ8LCPoQvI0z76AuVgTxe4OZjcXOBKqV/BNMHtSe6gHvoYvKsLk8H6CUx3YyvNvKoEfmv5 N1mwhwwvLWApg5SwGkELKKemu07NWwQBdywgstokrSVglfgf8cxpNocD9MqG2DuQXRAtMHiqCUCr PToUdk9KWAniU8A2awotgR3RYzc7sAXUzFG8DYRUYzQCeDTXIdqMEPVJMy/Bg/sLrfdMDWH78/pC kwTti8YkUcbWLdsQwC9wtZA8BgP1O/jI180crJUHF2iu5pEu2GabITtrfGSqKC/w5c1jox3+UElN sFlnIvGk/WtbAQ/ieqjX5zdBV+BzDgOGdoghCiLSHIao1Ewp2y0ulLU5cDmJPYfjtiLw3o61IfC7 HnPa8del10K/VnAuYXX5dwdp7rO1lwPNE0Deew7nmbF8TK+zpIbMSw4FrqPkOk7Y1rgDvMj9UPoH E0GBZX9haN4AAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6Y3JlYXRlADIwMjEtMDEtMTFUMTQ6NDU6MTArMDA6MDAidOsA AAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlmeQAyMDIxLTAxLTExVDE0OjQ1OjEwKzAwOjAwUylTvAAAAABJRU5E rkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Felix Da Housecat's _Kittenz and The Glitz_: "Silver Screen (shower scene)" Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:09:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:41:20 -0500") Message-ID: <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Is the expectation that headers of internal parts of the message are > being trimmed (in which case, they might be implicated in the signature > or encryption)? or, is there some situation i'm missi [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Is the expectation that headers of internal parts of the message are > being trimmed (in which case, they might be implicated in the signature > or encryption)? or, is there some situation i'm missing where they > might have an impact on the cryptographic structure? Well, we'd have to include the relevant headers at a minimum: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" But this code is almost a couple of decades old, and I have no idea what the thought process behind this was at this date. Anybody know? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 12 15:19:30 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jan 2021 20:19:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33273 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzQ8Y-00069b-Ip for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:19:30 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=59125 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzQ8W-00069T-GA for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:19:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1610482767; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=gF19veu/YMkCoDkvVN7KRZzlg948UW4RrIaYSU4DUTg=; b=iVKdnPClqCtAdVSlQJTmtJpCILaHGtkzoHQxH4l9FxhrrZFfvt1fqUCJ/S+ZNN2b7RuP1 uM7Eo/kWtl47iJlBg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1610482767; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=gF19veu/YMkCoDkvVN7KRZzlg948UW4RrIaYSU4DUTg=; b=YRJQHJjO5jm1hzxAMHs/zSrRoLOZzV31lXf8pTjEnGZnUnLwWXHWRmTUYowbtX3xe+3Jj 29+SCR64KDwnFFW/O4xF1WktbS0gNZGVu2S44iGuZgCv2NRaAemc07Z7Bqwkd/xCr+Fha0L VJL+8oENmkCyVO8uIfZ+VByUvPDSPlXXNMPkyyEnu2EAfMnT3GnCBlKvsFruAwHb7ZRNIAP 9av1l5GljJbugZ0Yq1tTrivi5GK7AbWAvWejy0qgLPhRtfNKL0PmgA4Emq3gG1IW4A3a5HJ a+ZirPFLbH2dmrI/GGPlV5feORw4TCsq0OQzqfPqydm5kn0h8IWKjnLtEhsQ== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (c-24-30-57-93.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [24.30.57.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58A3DF9A5; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:19:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 213D51FE6E; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:57:49 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:57:48 -0500 Message-ID: <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Mon 2021-01-11 16:09:18 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Well, we'd have to include the relevant headers at a minimum: > > Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; > micalg=pgp-sha256; pr [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon 2021-01-11 16:09:18 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Well, we'd have to include the relevant headers at a minimum: > > Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=3D"=3D-=3D-=3D"; > micalg=3Dpgp-sha256; protocol=3D"application/pgp-signature" I agree, but if the user is stripping the Content-Type header, i think they're going to break a lot more than digital signatures or encryption (imagine what that does to a multipart/alternative message). I think that stripping Content-Type is more of a case of "don't do that, then". Maybe we even want to warn if the user tries to strip any of the Content-* headers more generally. > But this code is almost a couple of decades old, and I have no idea what > the thought process behind this was at this date. Anybody know? As long as the code doesn't attempt to strip *internal* MIME headers (that is, headers of subparts of the MIME structure) i think it should be safe to apply it to the forwarded message.=20=20 Note also that if we care about breakng cryptographic signatures more generally, DKIM signatures are *more* likely to break if headers are stripped than PGP/MIME or S/MIME, as DKIM is capable of covering headers directly. Even given that concern, i think the most we'd want the "best" setting to do to constrain header stripping would be to compare the stripped version of the file to the non-stripped version -- if the non-stripped version passes DKIM validation, but the stripped does not, then either produce a warning message about DKIM signature breakage or (if in an interactive mode) prompt the user about whether they want to apply the filter or not. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHQEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCX/247AAKCRDEDyVUMvKB D+p/AQDi1rWVeIA3kexFTpM2ZA2WeLdfqwxqqWRoUaghrE3lKAD3ewkT8lfolOnF F3gp8hH6tarCQMApY7Af2rbNc825Bw== =k5eW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 13 04:26:01 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jan 2021 09:26:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34265 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzcPh-0006is-57 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:26:01 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com ([209.85.128.41]:40643) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzcPf-0006id-FC for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 04:25:59 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id r4so916459wmh.5 for <45631@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:25:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list :date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y9t93VifBO4AxQ57Y/02CQQO1+zuBVv9Lgwp330QlFM=; b=iO3vWrkTiRJQ/bC5H2cO5CGZaXPUr8EhdO+Z3BmGsWvnuzuCYqR3jogFLbW5iSijKy EspquR3Blz7nvXShkis4luR9AKZadgu38TnBsMSPhiQK0GhsfSm3ZDoXQuU1CBB9SDSs wSf7iJwjnI2UqvFeuhntnzKI8HFds0+zDMUuYAQ0IuwoOcwthDKyPm5O+RXWGvu1m8Op EEqGWkLEbaeiKc73ARhe5JwfxH9uVvZX29WzgfL0H8QkEiM6dTzS4ZLfHKVAAWh0wMwT bf8izNG3HXx0IWuK+2Z08ll7VkuO/By1UJrvW0C4WGQf5lQ5B+0Bz+IdqJick7GaR/wN wPFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y9t93VifBO4AxQ57Y/02CQQO1+zuBVv9Lgwp330QlFM=; b=QEGoD2Lk/bX4EduRtfURC8M/QAlma46xhnUUTCSeGK+U6r24B3aikKT2+UoxovqHl3 SuayrmZ+ZLDdZWPtqapfGfvThbYM4OKfrDSiw4feO9ye0BZ2UNq3m+iNGEVoOnc52nLm aBdb95iofYtMbOkYSgnetPeGIsw829F60cyAvucu9GVw3J6CXfxF1yJ39o+99cwXAHoS pj26XgjN1uuZvrS7OLkR6uDwVzvCjH5RgLH4kUTAbTOpgnwZI9gtyNZGIh85rFHJTsjD Bp/AM/IjZOarUIi/DyAEpsXUe/rVDg0KB1LCVIvDZa5UPlADL4hSdPI2nbzyOxgBhs0T e3Lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531U4KQWDC7FvlvVbRA8tuHbS9XALsmpptK1DqrqfXoSphM+e8ZM siJXS/T8RAtVj/WwgqhOfwEkoGQrNyo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyMG+c9y+gpiQELBg+RIo5k2x+Vnuk8sX9OvFfIBUzNXtNI/8n4WzxUlA8qnFREmq00sC5/aQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cc14:: with SMTP id h20mr1272158wmb.180.1610529953233; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:25:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from rltb ([2a01:e34:ecfc:a861:69b6:6aaf:dbd3:8964]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s133sm2068185wmf.38.2021.01.13.01.25.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:25:52 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Pluim To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:25:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:57:48 -0500") Message-ID: <87ft35qjc0.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > generally, DKIM signatures are *more* likely to break if headers are > stripped than PGP/MIME or S/MIME, as DKIM is capable of covering headers > directly. Even given that concern, i think the most we'd want the > "best" setting to do to constrain header stripping would be to compare > the stripped version of the file to the non-stripped version -- if the > non-stripped version passes DKIM validation, but the stripped does not, > then either produce a warning message about DKIM signature breakage or > (if in an interactive mode) prompt the user about whether they want to > apply the filter or not. Adding unconditional checking of DKIM signatures to Emacs when forwarding a message is a no-no. Think of people who work on email when offline, or people who don=CA=BCt want to advertise the fact that they've received email from a particular domain. Robert From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 13 13:23:54 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jan 2021 18:23:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36584 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzkoE-0000yC-9l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:23:54 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=54555 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzkoC-0000y4-ET for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:23:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1610562231; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=9YZEvuxyKD4VCywr5Pf1yTsUlk45TAmKhdy7Thj6RMQ=; b=B+229fZNvGFDMzbbNwfeel83xs9veXilbeLeP0WxUjr0XZ4iRxiqFzcYvKi7q/Zgvc6f7 Fs870jsrnp0fgJRDQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1610562231; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=9YZEvuxyKD4VCywr5Pf1yTsUlk45TAmKhdy7Thj6RMQ=; b=c+Rpmr43MmM+2Lw9353RownzK6n3t50OKWQNrKx3ioU85hb2TU1+h2jN1LEXkthsZdELn UXeAnUNmx1hHlDmttR9cX3PzL2guUmObHsAZ5FTsCqUkUFbDiWIftDzQdriNYeVI5hOeter DGzRJwPNh0+XhgqFzzKv1c9FJlx/hF7zsV/e+9RnVpYdXstzExP+8NAdwwBfLnKoTmS1Wrs NkK6fZYgZm0j0FM84yUiARwitstZTxFLTJCyJTM7rOKVQX7pJvmDxcpIDxP8c2Wk3gX+5Un ImokkwN+s39Xnel0GYWXbiZw0qBM3qDgzCAJa02/1rbJwGqRi6C+bbaB9OwQ== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (c-24-30-57-93.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [24.30.57.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A922F9A5; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BBF302027E; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:35:41 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Robert Pluim Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87ft35qjc0.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87ft35qjc0.fsf@gmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:35:39 -0500 Message-ID: <875z40kadw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Wed 2021-01-13 10:25:51 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote: > Adding unconditional checking of DKIM signatures to Emacs when > forwarding a message is a no-no. Think of people who work on email > when offli [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed 2021-01-13 10:25:51 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote: > Adding unconditional checking of DKIM signatures to Emacs when > forwarding a message is a no-no. Think of people who work on email > when offline, or people who don=CA=BCt want to advertise the fact that > they've received email from a particular domain. Agreed! I'm not actually suggesting that we want to do DKIM signature checking -- i'm just pointing out that if we're worried about header removal damaging any sort of cryptographic signature, that's the most likely scenario where that'll happen. The other forms of cryptographic signature (PGP/MIME and S/MIME) aren't likely to be affected by header stripping. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCX/8vbQAKCRDEDyVUMvKB D+dsAP9QNkkbA/WB2gy/59XFGCYC6SqC7E47HeU1OVdvHe3GcgD9FvrgoJRJ1GUQ miQHnORxjX+J2yDUdG1BpBTGQpgPqAA= =Q+HG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 18 10:50:24 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jan 2021 15:50:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47967 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1WnP-0001Hp-U5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:50:24 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:47628) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1WnO-0001HV-4j for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:50:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=AJoTOF4SQOKYBzS/XGlNhInkK3U1yXtCcO1YBeF+EZE=; b=etZ8mgB7Jj92D6hV0/tunj7/d0 B5cbnsSVRD3UWhTwkMSTZBaO/1gGculoH3y5wFyAINUYhCVoyqlNGDIRjZUmec3XKZ9+i27oQvItB S+aTDDlE8ECZMrEYb1o7X7GVc8Ixil2kXrcEZW1R3bj8knL5CeYBWn0esfjjyI7DvS6w=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1WnD-0004C8-HT; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:50:14 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAgMAAAAqbBEUAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAADFBMVEWYX16GWlrXyL7/ //9u4OxpAAAAAWJLR0QDEQxM8gAAAAd0SU1FB+UBEg8iAZbEp74AAAGGSURBVCjPPZHBattAEIZn hRWoTq6Ie/ApFAphnkIJOfkkjMYUnXps9RSycUrYUxHJxaeVcMzqf8rOyEoEy+ynf/bfnRkiopWU jn4yoHtKpSLa4APKwv2awUn65H6oRAU5J9vzohWFilwh3C/om8JXSssaozp4hQeRBuPScQZalkth jAXFLcinRAZJuAUhFApxwW0KindPB31JDrcxKFSAfynZIPO4NBr0npgioFsHoG8ofGnAr2sg0obC /QaH56YDpTWFZI3Qc76XiomyDuCXf2QGlF2sLI+pOH4HzsdE9xe64xF4/n1ok9NAAyIjfcwPf7sT 6W3Ze0FAWNUUAR/shBmArxs/wfzFP67+BIyioIcw6NqLpsXBwOe4MYiDisPRpjClmYHjq1vQpkep QI39TeD9SrtTGyzhu7Oe2QJHLd+/2gt2Wg3axL/ZsHRGe27Zv+0M1OE72LeWJipf5ueRbCe4NkR2 FthP9Yg6oOfTVTGHPa9nUIf+vp5hih/K5JDPUFm0O/EfFb0JCzV+bpUAAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6Y3Jl YXRlADIwMjEtMDEtMThUMTU6MzQ6MDErMDA6MDCOvUnMAAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlmeQAyMDIx LTAxLTE4VDE1OjM0OjAxKzAwOjAw/+DxcAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Sina Bakare's _Nigeria 70 (No Wahala: Highlife, Afro-Funk & Juju 1973-1987)_: "Africa" Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:50:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:57:48 -0500") Message-ID: <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: >> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; >> micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" > > I agree, but if the user is stripping the Content-Type header, i think > they're goi [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: >> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; >> micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" > > I agree, but if the user is stripping the Content-Type header, i think > they're going to break a lot more than digital signatures or encryption > (imagine what that does to a multipart/alternative message). I think > that stripping Content-Type is more of a case of "don't do that, then". > Maybe we even want to warn if the user tries to strip any of the > Content-* headers more generally. This is bringing back memories... When forwarding messages, we have three cases: 1) Forward as non-MIME Heeding message-forward-included-headers is unproblematic here: The recipient isn't going to be able to reconstruct the original message at all, since none of the MIME headers (and stuff) is included in `message-forward-included-headers'. This basically means that the recipient can just read the text itself. 2) MIME, but `message-forward-show-mml' We can also remove all the headers here, because Message will reconstruct all the MIME headers needed for the recipient to reconstruct the entire original message, with multipart bits and all. 3) MIME, but not `message-forward-show-mml' We don't remove any headers, because we don't know which ones are needed for the recipient to actually read the resulting nested message. Certainly not based on `message-forward-included-headers' -- this just leaves From/Subject/etc. So... I think what message was doing before my last change was correct, but insufficiently documented: If we have `message-forward-as-mime', but not `message-forward-show-mml', then we can't remove headers based on `message-forward-included-headers', because the resulting message will be invalid. If headers are to be removed in 3), then we have to come up with a `message-forward-headers-not-removed-when-using-mime-but-not-mml' (phew) variable, that contains the headers necessary for reconstructing the resulting message. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From unknown Sat Jun 14 03:57:51 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug No longer marked as fixed in versions 28.1 and reopened. Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:51:01 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug No longer marked as fixed in versions 28.1 and reopened. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 18 10:50:35 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jan 2021 15:50:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Wnb-0001IF-89 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:50:35 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:47644) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1WnZ-0001I1-6I for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:50:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0oMkA5EABW3yabiISt2ZwZoYnOONXQIeYlJBURftg7g=; b=AIesAvuVIIMuOPBIj+JvtrX5jG YLNew7cEnDa5rxvDp+Xe+EPPTsu5qiJihDDoIJwDxzUO+YdrWIukrMIyM70SRR3e5NUC+bR88S5iO cDMJ66vQGq5staUuQY9O8SqwVJMi1BJd/s/cputkDkeOI/eF5oBNEblYj3jRqVofCJso=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1WnR-0004CI-Bn for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:50:27 +0100 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:50:24 +0100 Message-Id: <877doaxn0f.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #45631 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: reopen 45631 tags 45631 - fixed patch quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) reopen 45631 tags 45631 - fixed patch quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 18 12:43:30 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jan 2021 17:43:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48357 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1YYs-0002Ad-65 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:43:30 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=57103 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1YYq-0002AU-7Q for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:43:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1610991807; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=fmt50bEZXQp8j9lQf9aaM/1vc3K9ptdfP9q+vvBDFAs=; b=c2/NaFfROPci6fH2FhsJ4JAF1z3J6/SRnmaUm3GewkBJnz4hUmwPl7thDkELeNEoihbi2 eNCFh/S65Tl4tNJAA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1610991807; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=fmt50bEZXQp8j9lQf9aaM/1vc3K9ptdfP9q+vvBDFAs=; b=EBOQsQwki2kE5Bf9MZaq2CRNOUoJfr/uhSZ9bBbJ8NUfH9s2kuz8MWbnw+ULXKR9Rdd+G ZS6qZGVazU+cG1+sAzu3/c+Gn3PjF0wBitF1EFpkIIaqOiyOtl6xpXgwZYQ+ZXhRRoDwwKV 3/7+/j0lV03SusmP8ws4K9DzVfypPGD6CQViUBMOAIj3VPl9LeCfB7A5bAymiPe1S338Qzv tCtqJ+s+lhHeSu8fd5s31ps8HsoxcPy4j0oC2v3uK8Xa8xRhWlT+M2EE8pUdMCveRDEuJDh xyZkGr0lVRTVqoAvI7zNInEo2SrARW+kEyCJMZ4aCLMhxzxbVDW8ClitKZQA== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (c-24-30-57-93.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [24.30.57.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECCA6F9A6; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 372F8201F1; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:43:23 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:43:22 -0500 Message-ID: <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I'm getting a little confused here, so i'm going to back up and try to simplify. There are two distinct (yet somehow overlapping) variables: - message-forward-included-headers (an "allowlist") - message-forward-ignored-headers (a "blocklist") Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm getting a little confused here, so i'm going to back up and try to simplify. There are two distinct (yet somehow overlapping) variables: - message-forward-included-headers (an "allowlist") - message-forward-ignored-headers (a "blocklist") Can we agree on that? Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any of the three scenarios. If both are applied, i have no idea which order they are applied in, so applying both is probably not a great idea. =E2=98= =B9 The simplest approach would be the following: On Mon 2021-01-18 16:50:10 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > 1) Forward as non-MIME apply the allowlist. > 2) MIME, but `message-forward-show-mml' apply the blocklist. > 3) MIME, but not `message-forward-show-mml' apply the blocklist. What are the downsides to approaching it this way? --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCYAXIugAKCRDEDyVUMvKB D8FWAP9f8/2yqUzffAuhnfidJyAIfNKZAyhkbSx0Ae4aUDUJJwD8DxAcI1FlmvVC YXTUzoe+HxWEMLxepDcdp0T9u+b8+Qk= =Xvdc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 18 22:12:20 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jan 2021 03:12:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48947 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1hRM-0002xp-7c for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 22:12:20 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:53402) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1hRK-0002xX-Go for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 22:12:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID :In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=DxrlVrUgvD5UUaqsLB2omrJc+K2M2pesop66YXs8wiE=; b=byDoLTAbu5DmPslytgxzkV+NU4 yeVZ9j7PSG2LBdM2DMaSiOBo37ZDW18DiXIFq1pSecXO+BeW3habMs0pfXABV7JDEApNaKcx1tMWU iNWE99oDxgG2lYplQ46tTWfxtrTXp8EpuCeyvbUC+Yhy1t3lZRIWL6AcdqetY+ULxJoM=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1hR7-0002dE-H0; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 04:12:11 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAGFBMVEUqKpIyLFpKI3Uf FiUGBAjOcZ8uVbz////Z7JBtAAAAAWJLR0QHFmGI6wAAAAd0SU1FB+UBEwMKFvnsEtIAAAGKSURB VDjLtdTBcoJADABQROUMAp7rIp4Li57V3XIuaHrGMpP//4QGNsBipzOd6TTAJY+Q7II6zl9i4X9L BV0qkTJ7urPQWvkLqZX0HVeIlwEoTyG1BpmJLliWmuECN9mDMLAyQHWQqI1VEg2g4kDlFhQDvMXA IOZwzH6ASwDcYwY0bl7xVDNQ1F0WVwt4qm5epbU1lVlHxn6dYClloTQAF07wGVDIuOJe+bglTt+a ehtRE/CtQ2xGWM3hwi1cWIp0H1rCsAYXIAELcmeC3IaLgbReA6QgqioGnssCjrsp8Sc4VnEdhgOc e4D3FOrjPb0rgL3dpIeU4HgD3kjTBGqg8wZ7mnnYAwM0ExlEdOnAwLbp11GndIgiP3wopGzZGui+ ViF2XQYjhpMzgkhkUWKLyo+2j8IsRIh+cWJfYoMnutChswdTQo9CfM3Qa7yFDSIqH4jKw1PrzSrE rmwRtziBO8ihPSFmHSyeoetC/blifJbXBM22ac4YMLjT9xrar9CU2L/gX/8N/Fd8Acc3qpqC/Xro AAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOmNyZWF0ZQAyMDIxLTAxLTE5VDAzOjEwOjIyKzAwOjAwP3XirQAAACV0RVh0 ZGF0ZTptb2RpZnkAMjAyMS0wMS0xOVQwMzoxMDoyMiswMDowME4oWhEAAAAASUVORK5CYII= X-Now-Playing: Ultra =?utf-8?Q?Nat=C3=A9's?= _Blue Notes in the Basement_: "Love Hungover" Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 04:12:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:43:22 -0500") Message-ID: <87lfcpsjr1.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any > of the three scenarios. If both are applied, i have no idea which order > they are applied in, so applying both is probably n [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any > of the three scenarios. If both are applied, i have no idea which order > they are applied in, so applying both is probably not a great idea. =E2= =98=B9 Both are applied. > The simplest approach would be the following: > > On Mon 2021-01-18 16:50:10 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: >> 1) Forward as non-MIME > > apply the allowlist. > >> 2) MIME, but `message-forward-show-mml' > > apply the blocklist. > >> 3) MIME, but not `message-forward-show-mml' > > apply the blocklist. > > What are the downsides to approaching it this way? We can't change when they're applied, because that will break people's setups. So we have to introduce a new variable for 3). --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 19 11:20:03 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jan 2021 16:20:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51392 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1tjf-0005zc-B0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:20:03 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=60913 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1tjd-0005yv-Qw for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:20:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1611073201; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=w83i1koEeUEBRRVw58boGH1aYn1XzrsCFPQlw6AmizA=; b=Wc+wXzPCo7uXIp6K3LK1xbjamc40xje0+EOTsWUTIG/RBLVVAIrWdYsha7zfVEfx4VHgQ OKXmdcgRvoigUeODw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1611073201; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=w83i1koEeUEBRRVw58boGH1aYn1XzrsCFPQlw6AmizA=; b=cLiOv+liYMKcA91fM0o34x81MJcAO4LZj4aATdXMwBMU/OMLdtLVviMZPh2IQAVJdQQm4 Gr+DAPvDnkATyK51m6ot3BCzYPOI5pAsjKYzl7+Ky4EuSld40ciK+eKhXTrrHfBEwHsH/8T ceVSNvqp32hG6z3kaN6MumoTZtqy1mzSp14Q4uJf6pH2YQkabfZBkUDvd7KCioVjJDeGHDV gweyV0pJv9C0653ySztdchYI2F/i3Wrz4PD3qTbXrpb/BEP7LXFZ73b5mhC5zQZbk12fyRf nkEzePhaHXZ9ye6rGg+VukNLHcG3HXrQKq7+I8xoM+vXF6ee5Fh+JUdk+CRA== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (c-24-30-57-93.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [24.30.57.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0F8CF9A5; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:20:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 341DC203D8; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:19:58 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87lfcpsjr1.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87lfcpsjr1.fsf@gnus.org> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:19:58 -0500 Message-ID: <87r1mgj3v5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Tue 2021-01-19 04:12:02 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > >> Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any >> of the t [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) On Tue 2021-01-19 04:12:02 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > >> Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any >> of the three scenarios. If both are applied, i have no idea which order >> they are applied in, so applying both is probably not a great idea. =E2= =98=B9 > > Both are applied. In all cases? I think neither are applied in case 3, right? At any rate, if they're typically applied in tandem, it seems like their help text should probably refer to each other -- this discussion is the first place i've learned about message-forward-included-headers :/ > We can't change when they're applied, because that will break people's > setups. So we have to introduce a new variable for 3). In case 3, neither are currently applied. The only thing i'm asking for is to apply *only* the blocklist in case 3. What setups will that break? --dkg From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 20 11:18:10 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jan 2021 16:18:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56006 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2GBO-00031V-Gb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:18:10 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:46156) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2GBK-00030x-KI for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:18:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID :In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Us4iETrC0TmqNJR4Z4d5V4Ia3AEYXkKZnSnZQA6cg6M=; b=RKs6s8/QBxCqp+5dAnxnch489E DKSiop+C5ttidtEx7yAyh7o82pbUI30mcI8lwBU7UMx6cGJFPAmrcd+PY7blKngmA0M1IIRR7x2iZ DfgZbqxvKE27Hy2U6ir8jqJbdiUH4aVZwuuQGt1Lg+IIs2rEGfGaA4UA7LE3v035gFP8=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2GBA-0001GP-Pk; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:17:59 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87lfcpsjr1.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1mgj3v5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAGFBMVEUiKDkGAwYeGiRc SCdcJAujWw7tvkD///9yuJSCAAAAAWJLR0QHFmGI6wAAAAd0SU1FB+UBFBAQLuJ0dQcAAAGQSURB VDjLbZPbkYMwDEWFK0Aa9t/WsgXskAaSECrAqWBx/yWsJJtHwMzEGXzQvdbD0GDrkBnw9MAvogv7 O911CQYIDp/3CrqHgRZgDxnvtuYI4j1iXFdokJDcybkLKPL0YbKdSn/g6sAfzA+AAokPX0Eb0PPV RYBp+Qpg74hX+1fO0ICeiVb7GB/Yjw8axZx1cy3vO874iiOP+u7UpWhNi4AURwOt7K/HnZKCZTap Y3mn9CdAQkDbcch8Sgv+pJRmMGPYEuyeN+zeEpI3PJzKRXZKz/5aRSjfhxqQ6WmrIOB1rKy14J1v qgDcXt04DDcuUo3fut5LCvLcv9+WYKmwBL9sP8190lqJ0pp3DkhLLxFeC1IS73RX4biBfN4vBVG1 3tpzFhc0tR8zUFiKKC0n+38O0nTRWlJJWcP2h4dhsEYFmbpwybwFSbtWK5nc2lTLp97xZaRLPy6d letpcxX2a9Dl2e1za4NNYwbRAOokknjwh9QzS1E4G5dGHcv7mSCAaB0uLt1WoO5ciQiqdh6TfxW5 dCpjs1zAAAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOmNyZWF0ZQAyMDIxLTAxLTIwVDE2OjE2OjQ1KzAwOjAwP2Ki3AAA ACV0RVh0ZGF0ZTptb2RpZnkAMjAyMS0wMS0yMFQxNjoxNjo0NSswMDowME4/GmAAAAAASUVORK5C YII= X-Now-Playing: Joe Jackson's _Live 1980-86 (2)_: "Memphis" Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:17:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87r1mgj3v5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:19:58 -0500") Message-ID: <87k0s7r39o.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: >>> Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any >>> of the three scenarios. If both are applied, i have no idea which order >>> they are applied in, so applying both is prob [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: >>> Either or both (or neither) of these variables might be applied in any >>> of the three scenarios. If both are applied, i have no idea which order >>> they are applied in, so applying both is probably not a great idea. =E2= =98=B9 >> >> Both are applied. > > In all cases? I think neither are applied in case 3, right? > > At any rate, if they're typically applied in tandem, it seems like their > help text should probably refer to each other -- this discussion is the > first place i've learned about message-forward-included-headers :/ Indeed. >> We can't change when they're applied, because that will break people's >> setups. So we have to introduce a new variable for 3). > > In case 3, neither are currently applied. > > The only thing i'm asking for is to apply *only* the blocklist in case > 3. What setups will that break? It's just surprising behaviour -- that Message will strip a completely different set of headers based on what forwarding method is used. --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 20 14:32:03 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jan 2021 19:32:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56301 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2JD0-0007uC-TT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:32:03 -0500 Received: from [162.247.75.117] (port=49731 helo=che.mayfirst.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2JCv-0007tk-SZ for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:32:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1611171116; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=5jCLqtygpQK9FyUt8mFedEEkRsMhp47fAeYuHpZZBsQ=; b=NOTTIhEaRVX1TG5bpdEEyQM58TIn0url1fAKCLpREsxJniYHRrPkKxiaHHic8gnZbjaSB eqSoql8nr47EgVwBg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1611171116; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=5jCLqtygpQK9FyUt8mFedEEkRsMhp47fAeYuHpZZBsQ=; b=fC7h87OWPCSw/T6z6yybSby60N/ZmY/AwJ0SEJRDWjArfkxNEmN23rdP+/oG1RDdEB0RJ HrwJG9xKAhVC9Ou3+nQYzes9I+7Z9d3oJbg8uMicqn8FdUCWWNTKVGNpS0a+qlW8ojhRbPE WL2kSZ1AG3LryEUJI4lwGP7UEMZLOXOnYGMGSQ+4wZ537AUZ3vPub9WeIDT3s3X7YraJ/lP 12mJ5AAwa4HZAfReH920gX7xuG7EAuYJ+Gmi8OX2H383NB62SqOojm115iZC3ICeVrUMaD2 y1iyBklSA8LHfRSpH+QKoWk9gP1j21rPQTSBQBdAqi8qJx8pTGvofk/rijog== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (c-24-30-57-93.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [24.30.57.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 860A7F9A5; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9E8BC20292; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:31:51 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME In-Reply-To: <87k0s7r39o.fsf@gnus.org> References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87lfcpsjr1.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1mgj3v5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87k0s7r39o.fsf@gnus.org> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:31:51 -0500 Message-ID: <87lfcnievs.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Wed 2021-01-20 17:17:55 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > It's just surprising behaviour -- that Message will strip a completely > different set of headers based on what forwarding method is used. Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) On Wed 2021-01-20 17:17:55 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > It's just surprising behaviour -- that Message will strip a completely > different set of headers based on what forwarding method is used. I agree that the current behavior is already surprising. I think it reduces the amount of surprise to have the blocklist applied when forwarding as MIME. --dkg From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 21 10:47:03 2021 Received: (at 45631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jan 2021 15:47:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59104 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cAp-00028p-9t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:47:03 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:58848) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cAl-000285-KD for 45631@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:47:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0gMe8zIk8hT6AnbjGZrI4+uMlcB64MAVvEGLHvIYYGo=; b=I9aEb0E08Wvfupyb9B8RWGDh85 /pl3b3o42l2DsIxjRlBHLTG/1AJfjEpErg4jfRkXkg0NoE+PZFyO5CV+XH+CvS51JLjnr0lEQg1nM OWcOMbdr2zWZa9FsNgO/MfQcP5j+L+6Y0Clnuk1+BcVi/8LGwhui8TPYvepPfimS9INM=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cAc-0006Xu-4U; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:46:52 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: bug#45631: 27.1; regression: message-forward-ignored-headers no longer applies when forwarding as MIME References: <87mtxq7xmd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87y2h71qj5.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxn6k69.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s961hmq.fsf@gmail.com> <87mtxgq0qo.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft385v27.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87czybh5nl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ft36jj83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <878s8qxn0t.fsf@gnus.org> <87turei1j9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87lfcpsjr1.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1mgj3v5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87k0s7r39o.fsf@gnus.org> <87lfcnievs.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAGFBMVEUlFwwnGhEvHxIv IBMtHxItHxMeEgn///8arPa+AAAAAWJLR0QHFmGI6wAAAAd0SU1FB+UBFQ8iAHwUr5EAAADfSURB VDjLjZM7EsMwCETZJjX4BlZykoxPkJn0rnT/I0RfW1gw8ZY8iTViTXiG8Nre2/ezhLCKsFCVLGFd Q5YUUZdIq1zqNFb5rGMATErHYVFlNAIP0FUozWpP7XAC5a2+b2wkIFMwXPsM3oW/gO/d8M19QA4Y J78JlAcsAMixS6BviOtIXdCr4/Z4nFryNHk6bT9JusBgMlJQjDEDZA+Zc5POwwTFNWdPAZScGrGn 0iW/n2HOOVGWud2K1F90nY/NVmM7Y3vwAJEL/CTKvZR4IMa4zyBW7Q+KlHkD8aIMfq1WI1uvWaGK AAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOmNyZWF0ZQAyMDIxLTAxLTIxVDE1OjM0OjAwKzAwOjAwpisXIgAAACV0RVh0 ZGF0ZTptb2RpZnkAMjAyMS0wMS0yMVQxNTozNDowMCswMDowMNd2r54AAAAASUVORK5CYII= X-Now-Playing: Meat Beat Manifesto's _Opaque Couche_: "Critical Soul Vibrations" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:46:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87lfcnievs.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:31:51 -0500") Message-ID: <87v9bq8f87.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Wed 2021-01-20 17:17:55 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: >> It's just surprising behaviour -- that Message will strip a completely >> different set of headers based on what forwarding method is us [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45631 Cc: Robert Pluim , 45631@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Wed 2021-01-20 17:17:55 +0100, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: >> It's just surprising behaviour -- that Message will strip a completely >> different set of headers based on what forwarding method is used. > > I agree that the current behavior is already surprising. > > I think it reduces the amount of surprise to have the blocklist applied > when forwarding as MIME. The blocklist isn't very extensive -- the allowlist should also be applied when forwarding as MIME, but that's not straightforward as things are now. I've now introduced the new variable, and headers seem to be removed/kept in all the combinations of the variables now, I hope. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 21 10:47:11 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jan 2021 15:47:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59107 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cAx-00029F-Lj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:47:11 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:58866) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cAv-00028y-QW for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:47:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WYPe3Ty8ppwudsWL6JoOGC8RsCuKlvHLxb/G61HknYE=; b=LqGRE293c0ilYobd6rPmUm6K31 itUe7n/rk520/1yC8v0P/M7/vlG+I5vdIBn+zrUZMnITuVzxEZoTpM1gNTEo9ImUW6DFfM6dhmoYP bNP0nOE69VFwk8M+OMRvhG9DYblf0GWtaU2EHAjN1+rWqr51Ldi8M731oNIAW8wVb41k=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l2cAo-0006Y8-9l for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:47:04 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:47:01 +0100 Message-Id: <87tura8f7u.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #45631 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 45631 fixed close 45631 28.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 45631 fixed close 45631 28.1 quit From unknown Sat Jun 14 03:57:51 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator