From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 29 08:36:39 2022 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2022 12:36:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60140 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nZB5S-0002Cd-Tc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:36:39 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:43876) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nZB5Q-0002CV-M4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:36:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42640) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nZB5P-0005IJ-84 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:36:36 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:48031) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nZB5J-000409-GC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 08:36:31 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1756A240029 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:36:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.org; s=2017; t=1648557385; bh=Y+LU2S0xGNAuPMbzCta8JcKQ/Htv9XMr6NU+hcJb+AA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=G/+xfrW/7LEtgic5VRwE+h/Z7ZJgJM+e4yddPv1p1p+Ce675+maui3o/LUmEgtxyW o46g+FMqGWyyI/HrElSsuUvaL0shTAz07UOFcTFPay2+09SKjlfdrKVl60vC5HD60o GOTtjif+QpEqfheho8p6tBMgu9f72n+QDlTAfWPvYVOkEKHfDyPsSB2UT+BGYe7mbN cBfp/5syNyeewAWKFgjR5fbQ75pxz3XUpyDxvBXiGZx9iygeXT9mqOA2LyuIYqPksd Q6McpZmBMCE6UrsRaZnbU1HNdR3mIDpNKzxuMe2kSV6V34yJfYiz8EAtCc6xp7qG8i MNDeE+AYyheoA== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4KSTZc1Ygyz9rxG for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:36:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Aleksandr Vityazev To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:36:00 +0000 Message-ID: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=avityazev@posteo.org; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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 (--) Hi, in small networks people sometimes use not domain names, but only ipv6 addresses. If (setq textsec-check t), wich is also the default, all such links are displayed as suspicious. ipv6 addresses contain colons and sometimes left/right square brackets. Example: #+begin_src elisp (textsec-domain-suspicious-p "21a:34aa:c782:3ad2:1bf8:73f8:141:66e8") => "Disallowed character: : (#x3a, COLON)" (textsec-domain-suspicious-p "[21a:34aa:c782:3ad2:1bf8:73f8:141:66e8]") => "Disallowed character: [ (#x5b, LEFT SQUARE BRACKET)" #+end_src I think it is not entirely correct. It may be possible to add additional validation for such addresses in the textsec-domain-suspicious-p function. WDYT? -- Best regards, Aleksandr Vityazev From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 29 11:12:25 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2022 15:12:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33373 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nZDWD-0004V7-K9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:12:25 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:33582) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nZDWB-0004Us-D4 for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:12:24 -0400 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=p09r9Su4vwLBRN79U/l5PZGXwEErJ6DHa1M3pDfrQkE=; b=mGLFIzFu6EL6AGnnTQnLz0mjwo 7NC/c7a7uIUBTF3i6izq1QCXcHknXifXCl0tK9V+sNkis1B2OLS/MrFSxLFpAr+X7frxQVJ0GGA3B 3IH2IcQJCKBKXdcyT8Ik7e9yyAH5SvzVOhgtRsrJdA9N/NsXghzS1dikxYc67BscdubQ=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nZDW2-0004An-Fg; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:12:16 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Aleksandr Vityazev Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:12:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> (Aleksandr Vityazev's message of "Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:36:00 +0000") Message-ID: <87bkxoaj3m.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Aleksandr Vityazev writes: > #+begin_src elisp > (textsec-domain-suspicious-p "21a:34aa:c782:3ad2:1bf8:73f8:141:66e8") > => "Disallowed character: : (#x3a, COLON)" > (textsec-domain-suspicious-p "[21a:34aa:c782:3ad2:1bf8:73f8:1 [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@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: -3.3 (---) Aleksandr Vityazev writes: > #+begin_src elisp > (textsec-domain-suspicious-p "21a:34aa:c782:3ad2:1bf8:73f8:141:66e8") > => "Disallowed character: : (#x3a, COLON)" > (textsec-domain-suspicious-p "[21a:34aa:c782:3ad2:1bf8:73f8:141:66e8]") > => "Disallowed character: [ (#x5b, LEFT SQUARE BRACKET)" > #+end_src > > I think it is not entirely correct. It may be possible to add additional > validation for such addresses in the textsec-domain-suspicious-p function. > WDYT? Yup; I've now done so in Emacs 29. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 29 11:12:29 2022 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2022 15:12:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33376 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nZDWG-0004VM-RD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:12:28 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:33596) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nZDWD-0004Uv-SU for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:12:26 -0400 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=rbMM9L+JxLlZ9/+1RODSShqvedrhShAE4KeUnswvu1g=; b=IV3CoI8tqXN00gXFN/rveGFT+e h/EFM0rZG+f6HlsI7C1+rX9B2AogLu1BnP2PqOdz5kQwxXHmqJVwQ0lFcDqu15tw4XlwmjE1Nh9TW np6gHWUGuhvjKFl6KJUoNbJuYlTXLHA0ysO6hZCsV30QdY2HCVqNW9KbppfP/dFFIUu8=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nZDW6-0004Au-OT for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:12:20 +0200 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 17:12:18 +0200 Message-Id: <87a6d8aj3h.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #54624 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: close 54624 29.1 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: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) close 54624 29.1 quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 12:53:17 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 16:53:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49372 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3TZ-0005u9-IB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:53:17 -0400 Received: from mail213c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.223]:36090 helo=mail194c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3TW-0005tq-Pz for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:53:15 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649004788; bh=0znCtIaTJH5+fahhVkKdpB38Z55XudgetZex8npxtCE=; h=From:Subject:Date:Cc:To:From; b=gPzvEFrs21yjsqgyG84zgL2mNTjw0gGJWjrRODBS+HFqXN/2w71KRuqriLOrKL0aB R6m14YZrbDjgy16Z5vJcaBbmAZpwSCBbqYNDpRddbp9BH/dr9Wo+RHXKP1R1vdNP2Y 4/LUG2d18FkQ7Hihv4SUqh8KK7fBUFraXWoFxSgQ= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 233Gr5wf007401; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 16:53:07 +0000 From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses Message-Id: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:53:05 +0200 To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F21.6249D0F3.0053, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) > (or (string-match-p "\\`\\([0-9]\\{1,3\\}\\.?\\)\\{1,4\\}\\'" = domain) > (let ((ipv6 "\\([0-9a-f]\\{0,4\\}:?\\)\\{1,8\\}")) Sorry, but these regexps aren't very precise, are they? They match a lot = more than valid IP addresses. For example, both match "12345". Is there any reason to be approximate here? Shouldn't be very hard to = only allow well-formed addresses. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 12:58:40 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 16:58:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49397 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3Yl-00063I-Ul for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:58:40 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:58208) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3Yj-000639-Tp for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 12:58:38 -0400 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KWg8r1N6Xz1s75M; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:58:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KWg8q6krZz1qqkB; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:58:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jS9BAzy908zR; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:58:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Info: L9LB3WTq8x7FnxHX4R3bZ7kP024LONwxnDM335d+VqbIjvmDLlsKr7BmNlFqJ+bO Received: from igel.home (ppp-46-244-179-148.dynamic.mnet-online.de [46.244.179.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:58:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D46ED2C364C; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:58:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> X-Yow: Yow! I threw up on my window! Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 18:58:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:53:05 +0200") Message-ID: <87tuba3xz9.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -1.5 (-) On Apr 03 2022, Mattias Engdegård wrote: > Sorry, but these regexps aren't very precise, are they? They match a lot more than valid IP addresses. For example, both match "12345". 12345 is actually a valid IPv4 address, same as 0.0.48.57. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 13:02:43 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 17:02:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49411 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3ch-0008KT-Oa for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:02:43 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:34562) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3cg-0008KF-5y for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:02:42 -0400 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=vFYWvesHQKWV6OTHOgyuQJcvSHq8AnGV2Mhexur4UJk=; b=vWCTHC3ap6M+Dgla2PgD7ALP2K Bj1D7E7D46aEhzRXGKcSptUsSVHpQz0SuuZZgKB659vlBSPW/XD6QKQH/S77GZocObW9ww/BgHTES LGyqEkOs0bZCATw+51hmLNMyyRKu692DJj4UsVD997XPWluBh2H30myqJmjNU4NPUSFY=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3cW-0001bN-9B; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:02:34 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:02:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:53:05 +0200") Message-ID: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > Is there any reason to be approximate here? Shouldn't be very hard to > only allow well-formed addresses. The point here isn't to validate an address. It's to say whether there's something suspicious in an URL. 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > Is there any reason to be approximate here? Shouldn't be very hard to > only allow well-formed addresses. The point here isn't to validate an address. It's to say whether there's something suspicious in an URL. There's nothing particularly suspicious about an URL that has an invalid domain part (in itself). --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 13:05:07 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 17:05:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49415 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3f1-0008O9-4s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:05:07 -0400 Received: from mail33c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.43]:35452) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3ey-0008O0-Cb for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:05:06 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649005502; bh=l2eKc8KRdr5mw2F8G3eMD8IlUk+iaN8xaIDxOa7A/lE=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=MsLYCkjG5WHeb7KzwhARh1PWNyIJzduzxDdFHYdcIsuwmek/KLCFe8pDBYhT7M4OP KfOylWv5gvZ5DH7MoQy0KkGZWpWTY/xvUUW2GyQCpoixZpwtZCz96PSnh04zr6qr5R MjRGm+xb/vYhfaVFiqZ961m7fvHseovsMBV6z+Hw= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail33c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 233H50UR021355; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 17:05:01 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <87tuba3xz9.fsf@igel.home> Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:04:59 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> <87tuba3xz9.fsf@igel.home> To: Andreas Schwab X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F22.6249D3BE.002C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 3 apr. 2022 kl. 18.58 skrev Andreas Schwab : > 12345 is actually a valid IPv4 address, same as 0.0.48.57. While this is correct, I'm not sure it was Lars's intention to cover = addresses in that format, or that it would be desirable to do so in the = context of textsec. Do you agree? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 13:07:57 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 17:07:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49419 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3hl-0008S0-LS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:07:57 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:34678) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3hj-0008Rm-Sm for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:07:56 -0400 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=LnJgBrbavw3rKv9/s1iTWHK7AmYCLtQZznEvhZpRxnA=; b=Kf7+5Cm8bT1htPNnfnV22rNCge mmjhTLNy9QUiKgcDtHnE/ZACVCcAvBq9mKtlSTSEl4LHmngD7B3me+qwBu9oSw8gVKQKs4m4Z6nOg DbZm8aQEEavG8ArvQXlUnOUwAHhARF1NDP4QypXhISplM6ejOL1nE3HtBkfvGadI5VX0=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3ha-0001f6-9p; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:07:48 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> <87tuba3xz9.fsf@igel.home> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:07:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:04:59 +0200") Message-ID: <87a6d2hz8f.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > While this is correct, I'm not sure it was Lars's intention to cover > addresses in that format, or that it would be desirable to do so in > the context of textsec. Do you agree? 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Andreas Schwab , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > While this is correct, I'm not sure it was Lars's intention to cover > addresses in that format, or that it would be desirable to do so in > the context of textsec. Do you agree? That was indeed my intention. --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 13:09:32 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 17:09:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49423 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3jH-0008UZ-VC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:09:32 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:34700) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3jG-0008UM-EW for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:09:30 -0400 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=Lksy8waYALTppdKem8IYYGMqIl3nVpNjqCbtOlQ23Og=; b=bHfNwjKH/TmTAwr9k8cJMK/+eA /qeEogTWjeet2Afio7rXaGrzF+xoiIUZ9bGhAOiTvGhJXjyXgja1qCz+raS+YrLfZ31EANP9ZB2k7 qfVGdHydtM7spkkYmSBNkURU52gLc4Gr1mSWPm4I1ELDQb08cy7E/+6XeizNko89adiY=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3j7-0001ge-DZ; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:09:23 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <874k3hlyvj.fsf@posteo.org> <87tuba3xz9.fsf@igel.home> <87a6d2hz8f.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:09:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87a6d2hz8f.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:07:44 +0200") Message-ID: <875ynqhz5r.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: >> While this is correct, I'm not sure it was Lars's intention to cover >> addresses in that format, or that it would be desirable to do so in >> the context of textsec. Do you agree? > > That was ind [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Andreas Schwab , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: >> While this is correct, I'm not sure it was Lars's intention to cover >> addresses in that format, or that it would be desirable to do so in >> the context of textsec. Do you agree? > > That was indeed my intention. (But that's separate from the new ipvx function -- that one was already not deemed suspicious before that function was added.) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 13:16:36 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 17:16:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49428 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3q8-0000Df-M1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:16:36 -0400 Received: from mail1454c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.54]:42692 helo=mail266c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb3q6-0000DQ-0k for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:16:35 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649006187; bh=fk9MPzjv/OOMHEeOzxW9jiD7QJZPJHiGGkYWXkAC3Xc=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=bBNBHh1x1DXp7tvfU4SEr2HKcRBIoQc9VZJptqRljp62hO4Xmjai/gf//6wY+geDk R4U/EmegvbrE+nrMSR0QqWY7qK9LfTF/FIYxjvy12MzvuyH/cSw9h/wYoJJOqPhDj9 qRC+XqhBI9SJoW6xzv+DMGlWwlhkSRS4Umm+uQ4w= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail266c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 233HGPwH031500; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 17:16:27 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:16:25 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F23.6249D66B.0037, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE 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: 3 apr. 2022 kl. 19.02 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > The point here isn't to validate an address. It's to say whether > there's something suspicious in an URL. > > There's nothing particularly suspicious about an URL that has an invalid > domain part [...] 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 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 3 apr. 2022 kl. 19.02 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > The point here isn't to validate an address. It's to say whether > there's something suspicious in an URL. >=20 > There's nothing particularly suspicious about an URL that has an = invalid > domain part (in itself). Fair enough. The reason I'm looking at this is that relint complained = about some parts (repeated match of empty string) and indeed the regexps = do look a bit inefficient. Would you mind if I removed some ambiguity from the regexps then? Maybe = even simplifying them to "[0-9.]+" and "[0-9a-f:]+" respectively? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 03 13:50:03 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2022 17:50:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49471 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb4MU-00013W-VP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:50:03 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:56629) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nb4MS-000130-HA for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 13:50:01 -0400 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KWhJ66zMkz1s75W; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:49:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KWhJ65Rzbz1qqkB; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:49:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lo8dZ0Za4CwD; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:49:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Info: 9XvGZbM8kwfSLxi+z0/PIOwO8TpuDV27wBFRGLctvaiQFUhLT8B2Ca6fTZSH2g9q Received: from igel.home (ppp-46-244-179-148.dynamic.mnet-online.de [46.244.179.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:49:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9CE352C364C; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:49:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> X-Yow: I know th'MAMBO!! I have a TWO-TONE CHEMISTRY SET!! Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 19:49:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:16:25 +0200") Message-ID: <87pmly3vlm.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -1.5 (-) On Apr 03 2022, Mattias Engdegård wrote: > Would you mind if I removed some ambiguity from the regexps then? Maybe even simplifying them to "[0-9.]+" and "[0-9a-f:]+" respectively? Note that an IPv6 address notation can contain dots too. This is useful for mapped IPv4 addresses. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 04 06:43:05 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2022 10:43:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50605 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nbKAr-00027D-Eu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 06:43:05 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:42352) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nbKAq-00026j-9l for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 06:43:04 -0400 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=wbftlZx9qTGtk3BjateMCHoao+JFCZFRlqWzrqiNHa0=; b=uWlFxAwIHelU5v6L0JX5WmqY1E 6ogGQBxOKPcSY4l/MqdV/AJXnN+JDL7RA7xrUmoB8ubSdqud9LWCuevdAVsK/IlnsC1w8yR0VKj7D H/Lw/q7M1C8Qsk+2RnZ7eAfPOC7G/+SHqbv/AA2LvLGI70M+DWRZtEoRPqOJw7zOssJA=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nbKAh-0004SQ-3V; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 12:42:57 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 12:42:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:16:25 +0200") Message-ID: <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > Would you mind if I removed some ambiguity from the regexps then? > Maybe even simplifying them to "[0-9.]+" and "[0-9a-f:]+" > respectively? Fine by me, but addresses that are too long should be suspicious (to catch people obfuscating by doing things like 000000000000000127.0.0.1 and similar). That's what I was intending to catch with the [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > Would you mind if I removed some ambiguity from the regexps then? > Maybe even simplifying them to "[0-9.]+" and "[0-9a-f:]+" > respectively? Fine by me, but addresses that are too long should be suspicious (to catch people obfuscating by doing things like 000000000000000127.0.0.1 and similar). That's what I was intending to catch with the {} things without having to actually do the hard maths myself. :-) And as Andreas said, I had forgotten that IPv6 addresses can contain dots, so if you could fix that at the same time... --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 04 08:48:49 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2022 12:48:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50797 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nbM8X-0003Ln-K5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 08:48:49 -0400 Received: from mail1448c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.48]:44364 helo=mail265c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nbM8V-0003LX-C4 for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 08:48:48 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649076520; bh=iRriLCO4KWZEp+FjCllQT0l1Cf3zYUJUXgvYYeBw2Sw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=eYiKebluW/3J3fpbI/P14Ov3gZARZRhCTba+qaRF4LTHvAynVQAauKmsTst+FXWGg kCzPpgX/YFYrccR0/UaHmxC4Z7z/fRXLyPbmo/efaHbLPH4dgexg+WIVjuiCy/L6mi 5S0JTacu8g+o2DT8ZsrY1PjG6ZC1ZBk5k2qxaGqc= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-b952e353.032-75-73746f71.bbcust.telenor.se [83.227.82.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail265c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 234Cmb8a015445; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:48:39 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:48:37 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F29.624AE928.0016, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE 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: 4 apr. 2022 kl. 12.42 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > Fine by me, but addresses that are too long should be suspicious (to > catch people obfuscating by doing things like 000000000000000127.0.0.1 > and similar). That's what I was intending to catch wit [...] 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 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 4 apr. 2022 kl. 12.42 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > Fine by me, but addresses that are too long should be suspicious (to > catch people obfuscating by doing things like 000000000000000127.0.0.1 > and similar). That's what I was intending to catch with the {} things > without having to actually do the hard maths myself. :-) I agree that is desirable. If a strict parse is impractical (not sure if = it is), what about something slightly stricter than what we current = have? Here is a straw-man proposal: (rx-let ((octet (or "0" (: (in "1-9") (? (in "0-9") (? (in = "0-9")))))) (ipv4 (: octet (=3D 3 "." octet))) (hextet (** 1 4 (in "0-9a-f"))) (ipv6 (: (? "::") hextet (* ":" (? ":") hextet) (? (or "::" (: ":" ipv4) ))))) (rx bos (or ipv4 ipv6 (: "[" ipv6 "]")) eos)) and don't forget to bind case-fold-search to nil while calling = string-match-p since IPv6 specifies lower-case hex digits. And thanks to Andreas for reminding me about IPv6 allowing dotted quads = as well. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 04 09:33:32 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2022 13:33:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50867 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nbMpn-0004Pa-Nz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 09:33:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f47.google.com ([209.85.221.47]:46049) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nbMpm-0004PO-Kl for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 09:33:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id w4so14490675wrg.12 for <54624@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 06:33:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xc4Jq+T/0PHEZIsB6RnsYbjiryh+Gzp6FHctM9rUT30=; b=Jh7n531QmQeRo4GYeaobliMfVyxZ70L+4KzIwRfM/igocF+ozP3Ft37mLUegcLcr4S XcNi/4iTFioJakzvUGnid+pj2M1EUbKXaH83xubWLIsj8JSs9s3AwCF9CKLFLZSb9+cc qzus97EM/Q5VArEnzXO4qMIZqjBBkRyf36JIEY2mLzPtVNi4UP5umCuu2SaPBunmT5th Ql3SLh7NXH0Gz4nyHE5QOr/xONnywJ6Pd7vs1+VYD0ceJppsSAasfJp095jk+Fmr3uXt ryGxIToEF7zI/dOcJC73wPhpEoaVM8q1dGI52A8+ZnAjPkUVfnfI7uDyJqTDyuQOyapg HXqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xc4Jq+T/0PHEZIsB6RnsYbjiryh+Gzp6FHctM9rUT30=; b=4GfRoUfuCdHB9zV4GbGy1RWI28O+pHoaC9s0wHMPLNrEdxO9gqv45YJ2V2Pi2tp+B7 mw1xwwfYnZsAmNMuutB0q7CfRMqQgVKdB+uUJtk0vVo03JJV4azHvm86e+uuTwvPt6+k FSm270M8fJxyHRyc/90z1t6TrMzdEU0h6oIzndCseulk4qZlk6c2I4ViCqpW7tE/la5E JYHozD7fdqdP3r9XPEImzluF6ZfrpvoQRBOiaycRV2DzS+Lylgdi1qwWRh+IixalBRE6 76G7/HgDZB9r6oU76KePR5Yj7vTNaLU916h6CQCU4ADmEhGWRtecxbWv/KZFk81bv0MP l+Aw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5333aN/tOaCpGkH5hjXAEoyHjDU8RBOQt1zAxQj+BOodRz4J1jbQ GUoTf+Gh9XaJBl5icDHjmLE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUKdun3ywDOO5FUXXaU5JCBpNcvVpkkKnszR7pVTg3j9cfF6F+qhokwSADtFal8qEPBwv57g== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5486:0:b0:206:40a:a796 with SMTP id h6-20020a5d5486000000b00206040aa796mr8478743wrv.314.1649079204528; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 06:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rltb ([2a01:e0a:3f3:fb50:63d3:852f:6a79:2aa0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b1-20020adfd1c1000000b002058537af75sm9821363wrd.104.2022.04.04.06.33.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 04 Apr 2022 06:33:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Pluim To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 15:33:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:48:37 +0200") Message-ID: <87r16d6kik.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: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (-) >>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:48:37 +0200, Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd said: Mattias> 4 apr. 2022 kl. 12.42 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : >> Fine by me, but addresses that are too long should be suspicious (to >> catch people obfuscating by doing things like 000000000000000127.0.0= .1 >> and similar). That's what I was intending to catch with the {} thin= gs >> without having to actually do the hard maths myself. :-) Mattias> I agree that is desirable. If a strict parse is impractical (n= ot sure if it is), what about something slightly stricter than what we curr= ent have? Here is a straw-man proposal: Mattias> (rx-let ((octet (or "0" (: (in "1-9") (? (in "0-9") (? (in= "0-9")))))) Mattias> (ipv4 (: octet (=3D 3 "." octet))) Mattias> (hextet (** 1 4 (in "0-9a-f"))) Mattias> (ipv6 (: (? "::") hextet (* ":" (? ":") hextet) Mattias> (? (or "::" (: ":" ipv4) ))))) Mattias> (rx bos (or ipv4 ipv6 (: "[" ipv6 "]")) eos)) Mattias> and don't forget to bind case-fold-search to nil while calling= string-match-p since IPv6 specifies lower-case hex digits. Mattias> And thanks to Andreas for reminding me about IPv6 allowing dot= ted quads as well. Or we just arrange it so that there=CA=BCs a primitive that maps to calling getaddrinfo(3) with AI_NUMERICHOST in the hints.ai_flags (but Lars' motivation here is 'not suspicious', not 'looks like a numeric IP address', so maybe not). Robert --=20 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 06 05:20:03 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Apr 2022 09:20:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56898 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nc1pb-0000gx-0r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 05:20:03 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:35000) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nc1pY-0000gL-Og for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 05:20:01 -0400 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=rSPC83e5HlB+Ei3elgBONLSsVsaW6kIF5T0VDTXFeMU=; b=o7LGTQwHDfmwKmb6bH1UjFrtCM UtqPvlxwOuZS8D2I4gInIwNfMlFsSJ3wOuXBzEf2iQK1eIRvkTvkuaXaRbGoOfr/4KlSyBPR0m7Qs p4WAfr66A6jzrOSe83fPcsoxR0wabL2X1k268SxsgIIcz2jYJiFo2W9QBVrsF/xA8Pis=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nc1pP-00013S-VI; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 11:19:54 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 11:19:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:48:37 +0200") Message-ID: <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > I agree that is desirable. If a strict parse is impractical (not sure if it is), what about something slightly stricter than what we current have? Here is a straw-man proposal: > > (rx-let ((octet ( [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > I agree that is desirable. If a strict parse is impractical (not sure if = it is), what about something slightly stricter than what we current have? H= ere is a straw-man proposal: > > (rx-let ((octet (or "0" (: (in "1-9") (? (in "0-9") (? (in "0-9")))))) > (ipv4 (: octet (=3D 3 "." octet))) > (hextet (** 1 4 (in "0-9a-f"))) > (ipv6 (: (? "::") hextet (* ":" (? ":") hextet) > (? (or "::" (: ":" ipv4) ))))) > (rx bos (or ipv4 ipv6 (: "[" ipv6 "]")) eos)) Skimming that, it seems a bit too strict, but perhaps I'm misreading it. > and don't forget to bind case-fold-search to nil while calling string-mat= ch-p since IPv6 specifies lower-case hex digits. Again, we're not trying to create a strict validator here. We're just saying something about suspiciousness -- invalid addresses aren't, in and of themselves, suspicious. (And most resolvers will accept upper-case hex digits just fine.) --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 06 09:28:18 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Apr 2022 13:28:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57371 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nc5hq-0001Uk-HE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 09:28:18 -0400 Received: from mail70c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.80]:45880) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nc5ho-0001UX-Rh for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 09:28:18 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649251694; bh=N5uNqb45Yc/yKjAuRPzFb0M9FhaYN4j0xYQWkVoIvjs=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=lhG5pGwcYIUf8iRw+bIjOEUwC0X4P4hV014TGZVMXdw16NuHOK9N+h/0TVGR/2+jM muxzIAD30ia8gadXXYaKy3+O8kW5sHKk9cKM5VnoCCa6joGh0geqJG7TFOT2oMBPoq xy2Pvs/Asjp3tjlmJlJiR1zVxAJVJ6+122Bstixc= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-b952e353.032-75-73746f71.bbcust.telenor.se [83.227.82.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail70c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 236DSBuS015466; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:28:12 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:28:10 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F2A.624D956E.000A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 6 apr. 2022 kl. 11.19 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > Skimming that, it seems a bit too strict, but perhaps I'm misreading = it. In what way is it too strict? I can't make it less strict unless you = tell me. > Again, we're not trying to create a strict validator here. We're just > saying something about suspiciousness -- invalid addresses aren't, in > and of themselves, suspicious. That's fine, but "suspicious" is quite subjective and I need your help = to define it better if I'm to write a simulator of your suspicion. Here is a new attempt, simplified a bit: (rx-let ((octet (** 1 3 (in "0-9"))) (ipv4 (: octet (=3D 3 "." octet))) (hextet (** 1 4 (in "0-9a-f"))) (ipv6 (: (? "::") hextet (* (or ":" "::") hextet) (? ":" (or ":" ipv4))))) (string-match-p (rx bos (or ipv4 ipv6 (: "[" ipv6 "]")) eos) domain))) We could simplify it further and relax the requirement on octets and = hextets (which seems to be what they are called, rather incongruously) = but then it wouldn't catch what you previously thought were suspicious. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 07 07:04:28 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Apr 2022 11:04:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59940 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ncPwC-0004yN-If for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 07:04:28 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:48012) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ncPwA-0004y8-D4 for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 07:04:27 -0400 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=Dj5Jw2AgW8oq39mOzAmpdF2DzzEB7bvL6XhfaM/Z9JQ=; b=nbRJWn94Dn0eEppQwUDJdb/51w 18cKUR2mrp7Zy2iSx+DnYk/LKG3EUqLZNe4rZ7effzU39HadmL5dY8XAZy+xvQEMXmpet/0jcF2bB 9Q8atfAoFYMQ3vpQLnp9Tx1hm/NAFa2OLMz0Tydv27C1ObsKldbE/W0RYTZ4V0WYDwzM=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ncPw0-0000Rd-Mg; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:04:18 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAACBj SFJNAAB6JgAAgIQAAPoAAACA6AAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAAF3CculE8AAAAFVBMVEVZV1NjXlllYVzf V0bziUk/Pzz///+MxlqtAAAAAWJLR0QGYWa4fQAAAAd0SU1FB+YEBwsCK/ZBuGUAAAGwSURBVDjL jVNLdoMwDJRDu7dED4DgAlD5Agm+/5k6kjEhaRfVy0uEx/ORcYiIMvP8UjJzpqO7ls4s0xUw++4Q GMysobSYV2cB6K3ZFZmID/3FrogGIBfC4cMnY7FSUY4oYs1KzJf1QBqlSYlZrScSeYlV3ACEkCw7 KBDTiItEZVc508HEPUTRV+3ndGj55OjLJhGPZ5WwjyMZ0Uo7F4A6AtAAPDtOLOJriMkJgCAiSAlE F2tSg9kmczdnp8QcbgEl2HJ7S8q2sQNIzsLxwRkofpcAsmfCTlEVLLvN+K0N2EJc411CU0ZMBSmf bg4HRMCcwmNICY6DvdQT+UHwsJ6ANO+2ozNKbY/CvZbVr8/QgbPyMmV6A5qWOZCH+s4YLEMq/QLy YrjplFJtcVNbpsT7RvEfKMccBwCl1QHOpWKe7P8S355zsdyAr3r3JYqvBOmw8Lz1gY1wi400NAuQ b3UPgDw8QWltjASTyQGOx1tXgu5Q74l6fewHwQXK/gSKnS3lsU69v+35CVAqj96OK11rrP15o9ey Q4Hf1gm3MdM544sYLhHeNf2uhKv91/q/6/MHY+1qejR7f8UAAAAldEVYdGRhdGU6Y3JlYXRlADIw MjItMDQtMDdUMTE6MDI6NDMrMDA6MDDHk6ZMAAAAJXRFWHRkYXRlOm1vZGlmeQAyMDIyLTA0LTA3 VDExOjAyOjQzKzAwOjAwts4e8AAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Autechre's _Sign_: "Metaz form8" Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:04:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:28:10 +0200") Message-ID: <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > Here is a new attempt, simplified a bit: > > (rx-let ((octet (** 1 3 (in "0-9"))) > (ipv4 (: octet (= 3 "." octet))) > (hextet (** 1 4 (in "0-9a-f"))) > (ipv6 (: (? "::") hextet (* (or ":" "::") hex [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > Here is a new attempt, simplified a bit: > > (rx-let ((octet (** 1 3 (in "0-9"))) > (ipv4 (: octet (=3D 3 "." octet))) > (hextet (** 1 4 (in "0-9a-f"))) > (ipv6 (: (? "::") hextet (* (or ":" "::") hextet) > (? ":" (or ":" ipv4))))) > (string-match-p (rx bos (or ipv4 ipv6 (: "[" ipv6 "]")) eos) > domain))) I don't really read rx syntax well, but that seems reasonable to me on first sight. > We could simplify it further and relax the requirement on octets and > hextets (which seems to be what they are called, rather incongruously) > but then it wouldn't catch what you previously thought were > suspicious. You misunderstand -- the function wasn't introduced to say something about (certain) raw addresses being suspicious. It was introduced to say that they aren't. --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 07 13:19:11 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Apr 2022 17:19:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33286 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ncVmp-0007tP-Ka for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:19:11 -0400 Received: from mail210c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.220]:41260 helo=mail194c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ncVmn-0007tE-B7 for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:19:10 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649351947; bh=jXfRptikUfdnFDBEJ61t5td0pyCEXtaUujNLtd7/hLU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=I9vynPDVgdVvYmC9KTZR71BtabWMdoogCBPqh8oyH4Vp5MBbJD1jqKYNzgFpw47Ef 1oZhArZzfYaVQkb8WpS7Arvzzqw5vhnshgECggla6KDxRlJYxaXT7hm9ylF/S+ZaAc nI+TNzwMwwa4VeWeL11X5XO3Tbkxu9vUdwGlCzO8= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 237HJ4K1015137; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:19:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:18:33 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F1C.624F1D0B.0026, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE 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: 7 apr. 2022 kl. 13.04 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > I don't really read rx syntax well, but that seems reasonable to me on > first sight. Sorry! Here is a more conservative change that only alters a few minor details in your original code, written in the way that you prefer: 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 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 7 apr. 2022 kl. 13.04 skrev Lars Ingebrigtsen : > I don't really read rx syntax well, but that seems reasonable to me on > first sight. Sorry! Here is a more conservative change that only alters a few minor = details in your original code, written in the way that you prefer: (let* ((ipv4 "\\(?:[0-9]\\{1,3\\}\\.?\\)\\{1,4\\}") (ipv6 (concat = "\\(?:[0-9a-f]\\{0,4\\}:\\)\\{1,8\\}[0-9a-f]\\{0,4\\}" "\\(?::" ipv4 "\\)?"))) (string-match-p (concat "\\`\\(?:" ipv4 "\\|" ipv6 "\\|\\[" ipv6 "\\]\\)\\'") domain)) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 07 18:13:10 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Apr 2022 22:13:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33572 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ncaNK-0007q8-BY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:13:10 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:43831) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ncaNI-0007px-Gu for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:13:09 -0400 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KZFxt6Jf5z1r153; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:13:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KZFxt5k1dz1qqkK; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:13:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTRSsdJWDrX4; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:13:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Info: 1AvQcX4UPhEqHfGJG/JbvVZgJJzohXxClOMiisglJbI3++5oNOPhYZSfmsOOAJtl Received: from igel.home (ppp-46-244-170-243.dynamic.mnet-online.de [46.244.170.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:13:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6B84E2C37FC; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:13:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> X-Yow: NOT fucking!! Also not a PACKAGE of LOOSE-LEAF PAPER!! Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:13:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:18:33 +0200") Message-ID: <878rsgsfta.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -1.5 (-) On Apr 07 2022, Mattias Engdegård wrote: > Sorry! Here is a more conservative change that only alters a few minor details in your original code, written in the way that you prefer: > > (let* ((ipv4 "\\(?:[0-9]\\{1,3\\}\\.?\\)\\{1,4\\}") > (ipv6 (concat "\\(?:[0-9a-f]\\{0,4\\}:\\)\\{1,8\\}[0-9a-f]\\{0,4\\}" > "\\(?::" ipv4 "\\)?"))) > (string-match-p > (concat "\\`\\(?:" ipv4 "\\|" ipv6 "\\|\\[" ipv6 "\\]\\)\\'") > domain)) That won't match "::ffff:93.184.216.34". -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 08 05:09:03 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2022 09:09:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33933 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nckc2-000334-S0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 05:09:03 -0400 Received: from mail226c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.236]:47258 helo=mail36c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nckc0-00032c-Qi for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 05:09:02 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649408938; bh=efvnPKJx7Wn9hvA1PSfvwQhnUkNTKMZ/J4KKQccXCtg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=dWoiLcFrbFtygj0sWKZlvvIFgnm07HXds5hni68pEw0pXbnkXEQjWfg9P+a382GyY zLhYN5GQiJsHk59Dfmu7NzLDVw8q5Jd9wfvh0S/mR8cLLyhz8GaYtdEil4I8NhPaaU 6fLJ/zj0xqlfC+2vgRleMGHM4YKQ7HGBuP2sitQA= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail36c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 23898tA4002456; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:08:57 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <878rsgsfta.fsf@igel.home> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:08:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> <878rsgsfta.fsf@igel.home> To: Andreas Schwab X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F1B.624FFBAA.0013, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE 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: 8 apr. 2022 kl. 00.13 skrev Andreas Schwab > That won't match "::ffff:93.184.216.34". Computer disagrees! 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 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 8 apr. 2022 kl. 00.13 skrev Andreas Schwab > That won't match "::ffff:93.184.216.34". Computer disagrees! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 08 05:18:22 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2022 09:18:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33949 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nckl3-0003HN-Ub for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 05:18:22 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:53156) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nckl1-0003HD-Ff for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 05:18:20 -0400 Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KZXjP5yJsz1s7sx; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:18:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KZXjP5X5jz1qqkP; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:18:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7M9bgEa2eeF6; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:18:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Info: HElDmi6ZBbJZsVAQ6eWTkkfOTRn5xP6CBJ7xIoKmmGEErkEpgBqHcW4lKJJla3ul Received: from igel.home (ppp-46-244-191-107.dynamic.mnet-online.de [46.244.191.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:18:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 43BF02C3948; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:18:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> <878rsgsfta.fsf@igel.home> X-Yow: NATHAN... your PARENTS were in a CARCRASH!! They're VOIDED - They COLLAPSED They had no CHAINSAWS... They had no MONEY MACHINES... They did PILLS in SKIMPY GRASS SKIRTS... Nathan, I EMULATED them... but they were OFF-KEY... Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:18:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:08:55 +0200") Message-ID: <87zgkwlyqv.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -1.5 (-) On Apr 08 2022, Mattias Engdegård wrote: > 8 apr. 2022 kl. 00.13 skrev Andreas Schwab > >> That won't match "::ffff:93.184.216.34". > > Computer disagrees! And the computer is always right, of course. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 08 05:25:20 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2022 09:25:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33959 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nckrn-0003S7-Se for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 05:25:20 -0400 Received: from mail1437c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.37]:34242 helo=mail263c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nckrl-0003Ro-7o for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 05:25:18 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649409910; bh=kqkrCN/bWYJK3EFz9hZ7bOCZHTtqijp/3Uqi92rwa+s=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=p4YpJBlxwv8CJ89VrkmizIGPmFdnsH+jVmQTJLNK0DecWUFgLUHjWdQDgVvNePwFg 96xMDEyNqmjTg94PjiHOu6H5AoONL/pU9+IeEy9QKZo3Pcnpgj2rxoPbbRiWpZE2hm 7hrr/Guy6ZSKCCjJX7lhg6sj+JzGp5ur1k60fqRU= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail263c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 2389P7l3004748; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:25:09 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <87zgkwlyqv.fsf@igel.home> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:25:07 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <38B1BA02-9066-48EA-8B4A-19BB70203CCC@acm.org> References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> <878rsgsfta.fsf@igel.home> <87zgkwlyqv.fsf@igel.home> To: Andreas Schwab X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F22.624FFF76.0004, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE 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: 8 apr. 2022 kl. 11.18 skrev Andreas Schwab : >> Computer disagrees! > > And the computer is always right, of course. Tell me all about it, it's been like this all morning. I've even threatened with reinstallation, to no avail. No proper respect towards us organics. 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 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) 8 apr. 2022 kl. 11.18 skrev Andreas Schwab : >> Computer disagrees! >=20 > And the computer is always right, of course. Tell me all about it, it's been like this all morning. I've even = threatened with reinstallation, to no avail. No proper respect towards us organics. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 11 10:30:06 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2022 14:30:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44929 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ndv3O-0000Ro-2n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:30:06 -0400 Received: from mail1449c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.49]:50842 helo=mail265c50.megamailservers.eu) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ndv3L-0000QQ-9s for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:30:04 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1649687396; bh=95ScrSNI0lCmSnmXMuiE1fGxyXjr/7QqtkCh++F8lus=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=r9XW8b7WctZFTe7zgfluDalhPNoZWhjImGiki4GNE0wBf3BRojYThZKnqH2FJxkcg 8S7AjPKlhN2ixF8HJCqzJF/lW6Uu5zEb2GjaVpysKRCLybgYK22BllsL3WN7meXy52 yrqkvy4UhH9+ihXQcmoXYWC9yHaKUwPsxXPL9Kgc= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Received: from smtpclient.apple (c188-150-171-71.bredband.tele2.se [188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail265c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 23BETsLq000856; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:29:55 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= In-Reply-To: <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:29:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4AD17506-1FEB-4984-800E-FFE3DAC459AD@acm.org> References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F2A.62543B64.004F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-Origin-Country: SE 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 ended up with a conservative approach of only changing the minimum necessary (support for IPv6/IPv4 hybrid addresses, remove regexp ambiguity) but did translate to rx. If you prefer otherwise, tell [...] 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 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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: -0.0 (/) I ended up with a conservative approach of only changing the minimum = necessary (support for IPv6/IPv4 hybrid addresses, remove regexp = ambiguity) but did translate to rx. If you prefer otherwise, tell me and = It will be done. Changed on master (26db1ca80e). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 11 11:34:44 2022 Received: (at 54624) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2022 15:34:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45098 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ndw3v-0002LP-OC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:34:43 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:37876) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ndw3t-0002L3-Of for 54624@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:34:42 -0400 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=8TCS6HQLTKtZ/JQiY+C7pTpdBanUZGxtDb3UGUvLd8Y=; b=twxCHMUDtdvFlQMYvF/kps6ZdH KKHT9YuvArvvRWH/o7rGzir6wit3oftYg+7uu9UxzoHK1qtNUbsjw4R6TPRZijXRXUnpzl8IYlfPS Kh9NOYz/pWv1H+GYL+Uz1pdSRUTPMsc7S26na8PFHeiUC29FUG7t7LD/q6k0XeqjLGjA=; Received: from [84.212.220.105] (helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ndw3k-000501-UO; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:34:35 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Subject: Re: bug#54624: 29.0.50; textsec and ipv6 addresses References: <87ee2ehzh6.fsf@gnus.org> <13DB0609-9BEB-42E5-BF2E-B29638A7F3E1@acm.org> <87czhxgmdt.fsf@gnus.org> <871F72AF-D4A2-4C68-9FF8-AF290103E0EA@acm.org> <87sfqqefgq.fsf@gnus.org> <874k35cfyr.fsf@gnus.org> <4AD17506-1FEB-4984-800E-FFE3DAC459AD@acm.org> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:34:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4AD17506-1FEB-4984-800E-FFE3DAC459AD@acm.org> ("Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:29:53 +0200") Message-ID: <87r163my5z.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (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: Mattias Engdegård writes: > I ended up with a conservative approach of only changing the minimum > necessary (support for IPv6/IPv4 hybrid addresses, remove regexp > ambiguity) but did translate to rx. If you prefer otherwise, [...] 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: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54624 Cc: 54624@debbugs.gnu.org, Aleksandr Vityazev 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 (---) Mattias Engdeg=C3=A5rd writes: > I ended up with a conservative approach of only changing the minimum > necessary (support for IPv6/IPv4 hybrid addresses, remove regexp > ambiguity) but did translate to rx. If you prefer otherwise, tell me > and It will be done. Looks fine to me. --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From unknown Sat Aug 09 20:35:04 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 11:24:04 +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