This is a testmail!

[Hans]

Hi folks,

this is a testmail, because I got some trouble with the mailingist. As
reported before, I get all ,mails from debian-***@lists.debian.org with
tagged with *****SPAM**** added to the subject. This is because of some DKIM
failure, as reported before. As I could fix this by setting a special rule for
this mailaddresse in spamassassin, I know dicovered another issue.

When I am sending a mail to the list, it looks like the subject is completely
replaced with only "*****SPAM*****".

I would like to know, when this happens. Either during the transfer from me to
the debian server, or when it is sent from the debian server to me.

This mail has the subject "This is a testmail!".

It would be nice, if someone could tell me, if this mail is tagged with
"****SPAM****" somewhere and if the subject is removed or not.

This behaviour appeared suddenly several months ago and I do not know, what,
might have changed since then.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards

Hans

[The Wanderer]

Post by Hans
Hi folks,
this is a testmail, because I got some trouble with the mailingist.
As reported before, I get all ,mails from
the subject. This is because of some DKIM failure, as reported
before. As I could fix this by setting a special rule for this
mailaddresse in spamassassin, I know dicovered another issue.
When I am sending a mail to the list, it looks like the subject is
completely replaced with only "*****SPAM*****".

I have not noticed this, but I'll admit that I have not been reading
every thread, so it's possible it might have been in the depths of a
thread which I was not reading.

Post by Hans
I would like to know, when this happens. Either during the transfer
from me to the debian server, or when it is sent from the debian
server to me.
This mail has the subject "This is a testmail!".
It would be nice, if someone could tell me, if this mail is tagged
with "****SPAM****" somewhere

It does not appear to be, unless these occurrences of that string in the
*body* of the message count.

Post by Hans
and if the subject is removed or not.

It was not. I have not, that I'm aware of, seen that happen.


Also, looking at the message headers, I see what appear to be multiple
indications that DKIM validation passed.

[Hans]

Hmm, this is strange. Maybe I wrote my testmail from scratch.

This one is a reply as it have been, when the issue appeared.

Strangely my own testmail appeared without the SPAM tag this time.

Maybe there is a difference, if I am using a reply mail.

I will watch this and search for more information.

Hope, not everyone is replying now, only one feedback is enough.

Thanks for help though.

Best

Hans

[Hans]

Am Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2024, 13:58:07 CEST schrieb Hans:
Answering myself:

At the moment everything is looking fine.

Maybe after the big issue yesterday, the mail admins somewhere in the world
have fixed the problem? Dunno. Whatever, strange.....

I will watch this in the future.

Let's close this issue for now, so that this list is not too much filled with
unusefull spam.

However, if this issue appears again, I will allow myself to ask again for
help.

Thank you all for your quick response!

Best regards

Hans

Post by Hans
Hmm, this is strange. Maybe I wrote my testmail from scratch.
This one is a reply as it have been, when the issue appeared.
Strangely my own testmail appeared without the SPAM tag this time.
Maybe there is a difference, if I am using a reply mail.
I will watch this and search for more information.
Hope, not everyone is replying now, only one feedback is enough.
Thanks for help though.
Best
Hans

[CToID]

Subject and the content LGTM.

[Roger Price]

Hi, this what I received from you. Cheers, Roger

Return-path: <bounce-debian-user=debian=***@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: ***@localhost
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:17:06 +0200
Received: from [::1] (helo=titan.rogerprice.org)
by titan with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
(envelope-from <bounce-debian-user=debian=***@lists.debian.org>)
id 1sPKSX-000BB5-QT
for ***@localhost; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:17:06 +0200
Delivered-To: ***@rogerprice.org
Received: from mail.gandi.net [2001:4b98:e00::9]
by titan.rogerprice.org with POP3 (fetchmail-6.4.16)
for <***@localhost> (single-drop); Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:17:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100])
by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7284F74003A
for <***@rogerprice.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id BE07320671; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-user-***@lists.debian.org Thu Jul 4 11:15:21
2024
Old-Return-Path: <***@loop.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
FOURLA,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable
autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Original-To: lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A68D2065E
for <lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:13 +0000
(UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1,
LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id ujzTpCms6YZb for <lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org>;
Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check
from: .loop. - helo: .mail37c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain:
.megamailservers.)
FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
Received: from mail37c50.megamailservers.eu (mail176c50.megamailservers.eu
[91.136.10.186])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3472064E
for <debian-***@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authenticated-User: ***@o2online.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu;
s=maildub; t=1720091705;
bh=NFdZXTvtPi7RA/43aM6v1rxa6iP8uBGeXo/HBz7i/x4=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
b=Kt+u3inWKlgqA2fwE41IKx3r2P0umac0jZx2CxYqKJ4sQmJNmTPoc9qvtr1Bqa9/k
nvkFOMxcBLmvCKWsrYNf1bcOIaV+Zs2LeG1pwbfyBlCfXwrYxaRRSBLodzICVqw8G3
8YbVywtnmnf7DSK/o1SSLXDHCt+1m1pCdNs+n9l0=
Feedback-ID:***@lo
Received: from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de [89.183.193.109])
(authenticated bits=0)
by mail37c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 464BEwoJ032290
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
for <debian-***@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:00 +0000
From: Hans <***@loop.de>
To: debian-***@lists.debian.org
Subject: This is a testmail!
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:14:58 +0200
Message-ID: <***@protheus2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:

gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdefiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjug

hrpefhvffufffkggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdevhedvgffffefgveffieefveffueetuedtleef

veettdfhleejffegkeejffenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuh

hsvddrlhhotggrlhhnvghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghn
rdhorhhg
X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=0.90
X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [0.90 / 6.00];
CTE_CASE(0.50)[];
MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[];
MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
ASN(0.00)[asn:13045, ipnet:89.183.0.0/16, country:DE];
FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[];
MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
ARC_NA(0.00)[];
RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0];
TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[];
SUBJECT_ENDS_EXCLAIM(0.00)[]
X-Origin-Country: DE
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <***@bendel>
Resent-From: debian-***@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-***@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/812904
X-Loop: debian-***@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-URL: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-***@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-***@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-***@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:debian-user-***@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-***@lists.debian.org
List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/***@protheus2
Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:15:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-GND-Status: LEGIT
Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net;
dkim=pass header.d=megamailservers.eu header.s=maildub header.b=Kt+u3inW;
dmarc=none;
spf=none (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of
"bounce-debian-user=debian=***@lists.debian.org" has no SPF policy
when checking 82.195.75.100)
smtp.mailfrom="bounce-debian-user=debian=***@lists.debian.org"

Hi folks,

this is a testmail, because I got some trouble with the mailingist. As
reported before, I get all ,mails from debian-***@lists.debian.org with
tagged with *****SPAM**** added to the subject. This is because of some DKIM
failure, as reported before. As I could fix this by setting a special rule for
this mailaddresse in spamassassin, I know dicovered another issue.

When I am sending a mail to the list, it looks like the subject is completely
replaced with only "*****SPAM*****".

I would like to know, when this happens. Either during the transfer from me to
the debian server, or when it is sent from the debian server to me.

This mail has the subject "This is a testmail!".

It would be nice, if someone could tell me, if this mail is tagged with
"****SPAM****" somewhere and if the subject is removed or not.

This behaviour appeared suddenly several months ago and I do not know, what,
might have changed since then.

Thank you for your help.

Best regards

Hans

[Roger Price]

My apologies for flooding the list with what should have been a private
mailing. Roger

[Hans]

Me again, sorry.


Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!


Subject:
Re: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!


This is the header:


--------------------
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
X-Envelope-From: bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=***@lists.debian.org
DMARC-Filter:
OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu 464C5Iek122979
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loop.de
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
header.d=megamailservers.eu header.i=@megamailservers.eu header.b="QLjumGn/"
Return-Path: <bounce-debian-user=hans.ullrich=***@lists.debian.org>
Received:
from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
mail39c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 464C5Iek122979 for
<***@loop.de>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:21 +0000
Received:
from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with
QMQP id EA3E420682; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailbox-Line:
From debian-user-***@lists.debian.org Thu Jul 4 12:05:15 2024
Old-Return-Path: <***@loop.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
FOURLA,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable
autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Original-To: lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org
Received:
from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with
ESMTP id C18E42067A for <lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org>; Thu,
4 Jul 2024 12:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No,
score=-6.301 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2,
DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399,
LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received:
from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.debian.org
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 2525) with ESMTP id CNGEsE8xgvQ4 for
<lists-debian-***@bendel.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight:
NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check from: .loop. -
helo: .mail194c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: .megamailservers.)
FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
Received:
from mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (mail208c50.megamailservers.eu
[91.136.10.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
(256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bendel.debian.org
(Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC67D20677 for <debian-***@lists.debian.org>; Thu,
4 Jul 2024 12:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Authenticated-User: ***@o2online.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu;
s=maildub; t=1720094700; bh=5Um9/MplAQNd+svZJOunmBGElnorPOi9odLzGqxgObQ=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=QLjumGn/60xFVhN9BUbajEg0uTOZxqi/Uz8jodz7E1EE2Hi7W3VtjJFW4LGmbJGnC
Lt7Nym0B3iEmO+1/fxpnDfmt1lRnzu+Q65akTEd8eaEHbj8G7yo5OCpI4oVjRr7q9o
pn0upeaUIrxnepbAwXeozeebIuTSx2zuaH0xvL30=
Feedback-ID: ***@lo
Received:
from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de [89.183.193.109])
(authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with
ESMTP id 464C4rxR025870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for
<debian-***@lists.debian.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:04:55 +0000
From: Hans <***@loop.de>
To: debian-***@lists.debian.org
Subject: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:04:53 +0200
Message-ID: <***@protheus2>
In-Reply-To: <***@protheus2>
References:
<***@protheus2> <***@fastmail.fm>
<***@protheus2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjgh
fggfgtgejudeftdfjphegsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefjrghnshcuoehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthhesl
hhoohhprdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfdvudekheefueevieelgefftdfhtedvlefgfefhieevveejud
elhffhleethfeknecukfhppeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdekledrudekfedrudelfedruddtleenucevlhh
ushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdhhvghlohepsg
gvnhguvghlrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhunhgtvgdquggvsghirghnqdhus
hgvrhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhpehlohhophdruggvsehlihhsthhsrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpnhg
spghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthheslhhoohhprdguvg
X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE:
gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvf
fufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohho
phdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdethfeludejieeljeeugefgieekheeitdfggfehuedvvdfhjedute
ekkedtvdenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrgh
mpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuhhsvddrlhhotggrlhhnv
ghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhope
dupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghnrdhorhhg
X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=1.59
X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [1.59 / 6.00];
R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[megamailservers.eu:s=maildub]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[];

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Hans
Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!

That's very surprising.

Post by Hans
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)

I have absolutely no idea where that spam flag may be coming from.
It's a mystery.

[The Wanderer]

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Hans
Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!

That's very surprising.

Post by Hans
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)

I have absolutely no idea where that spam flag may be coming from.
It's a mystery.

Perhaps even more interestingly, I see the following, in the
ARC-Authentication-Results header in three mails from Hans in this
thread. (This is not the same as the Authentication-Results header, such
as you quoted, of which there appear to be four in each mail.)

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Hans
dkim=pass (1024-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=megamailservers.eu
header.s=maildub
dkim=fail (message has been altered, 1024-bit rsa key sha256)
header.b=QLjumGn/ header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=maildub
dkim=fail (message has been altered, 1024-bit rsa key sha256)
header.b=r8P8m4Og header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=maildub

Perhaps interestingly (or perhaps not), that last one appears to be
multipart MIME (one part with HTML and one part plain-text), whereas the
other two appear to be plain-text-only.

(I am not entirely certain which mail is the one from which Hans quoted
a set of headers. Those headers include a Subject: line with the
[SOLVED] tag, of which I've received only one message thus far via the
list in this thread; however, the headers in that mail as I received it
do not appear to *remotely* match the ones Hans quoted, enough so that I
am not confident of them being the same message. If they are, then that
might narrow down the places where the failure could be being
introduced.)


So we have three at least visible scenarios in just this thread: plain
text with DKIM pass, plain text with DKIM fail, and multipart MIME with
DKIM fail.

Hans, are you certain you composed those three messages the same way,
using the same interface of the same program, and sent them the same
way?

[Hans]

Hi The Wanderer,

Post by The Wanderer
Hans, are you certain you composed those three messages the same way,
using the same interface of the same program, and sent them the same
way?

No, the first mail was created natively (= a new mail), the one with the
"[SOLVED] in the subject was a reply to someones mail from the list and the
last mail was also a reply this time of my of my own.

It looks like replying to soemone (my normal behaviour) is causing this issue.
And it looks like, that I am getting the SPAM tag, not you.

Some minutes ago I informed megamailservers.eu of my problem and sent them the
mail with the headers, i sent here, too.

Hopefully I will get some response.

The strange thing is,this issue suddenly apeared from nowhere. I have nothing
changed here (except of upgrades). I am running debian bookworm and my mail
client is kmail. But that should not be the problem.

Best

Hans

[The Wanderer]

Post by Hans
Hi The Wanderer,

Post by The Wanderer
Hans, are you certain you composed those three messages the same
way, using the same interface of the same program, and sent them
the same way?

No, the first mail was created natively (= a new mail),

To clarify: the mail I listed first was the one which you wrote as a
reply to me, not the mail with which you started this thread. So both
that *and* the one after it were replies, but the one got a pass and the
other didn't.

Post by Hans
the one with the "[SOLVED] in the subject was a reply to someones
mail from the list and the last mail was also a reply this time of my
of my own.
It looks like replying to soemone (my normal behaviour) is causing this issue.

Except that the reply to my previous message did not get the issue.

(FWIW, your most recent reply - which is also a reply to a mail from me
- does have the "DKIM fail" header information.)

Post by Hans
And it looks like, that I am getting the SPAM tag, not you.

That much does seem to be the case, yes.

Post by Hans
Some minutes ago I informed megamailservers.eu of my problem and sent
them the mail with the headers, i sent here, too.
Hopefully I will get some response.
The strange thing is,this issue suddenly apeared from nowhere. I have
nothing changed here (except of upgrades). I am running debian
bookworm and my mail client is kmail. But that should not be the
problem.

I do agree that, as I think I've seen suggested in previous threads, the
most likely culprit here is your mail provider having changed something.
Hopefully the inquiry you've started with them will bear fruit; if it
does not, you may want to look into changing providers. (I can recommend
Fastmail, for whatever that's worth.)

[Hans]

Surprisingly Testmail_2 appeared WITHOUT the SPAM tag.

This one is a reply of a mail from The Wanderer.

I expect it WITH the SPAM tag from the debian list.

Hans

[The Wanderer]

Post by Hans
Surprisingly Testmail_2 appeared WITHOUT the SPAM tag.
This one is a reply of a mail from The Wanderer.
I expect it WITH the SPAM tag from the debian list.

This one showed up on my end with dkim=fail in the usual header.

[Hans]

This ypou received NOT from the list was my fault - forgot to add the address
in the To: field. Sorry

Hans

...and the second copy which I received *not* via the list (which I'm
assuming, but haven't verified, was sent by BCC or similar rather than
being a separate unique mail), which I did not see before sending my
previous reply, also had dkim=fail.

[The Wanderer]

Post by The Wanderer

Post by Hans
Surprisingly Testmail_2 appeared WITHOUT the SPAM tag.
This one is a reply of a mail from The Wanderer.
I expect it WITH the SPAM tag from the debian list.

This one showed up on my end with dkim=fail in the usual header.

...and the second copy which I received *not* via the list (which I'm
assuming, but haven't verified, was sent by BCC or similar rather than
being a separate unique mail), which I did not see before sending my
previous reply, also had dkim=fail.

[Hans]

Yes, I saw the DKIM=fail at the first time, but debian said, it is the fault
of megamailservers.eu and theire servers are ok.

So I contacted megamailservers.eu today, but generally I can do nothing else
myself, as I am no admin of any involved mailservers.

So, hopefully they will answer.

IMO something is wrong, or let's say, soemthing is not working as I expect it.

At the moment I have no further clue. So, we will wait. Lets stop for now.

But thanks for the help and your time!

Best

Hans

[Detlef Vollmann]

Isn't this the usual DKIM problem with lists?
The From: has @loop.de, but the sender and DKIM signature
is from lists.debian.org.

That's why most lists these days rewrite the From: header.

Detlef

Post by Hans
Me again, sorry.
Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!
Re: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
--------------------
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu 464C5Iek122979
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loop.de
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
mail39c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 464C5Iek122979 for
from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with
QMQP id EA3E420682; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=4.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
FOURLA,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable
autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with
4 Jul 2024 12:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No,
score=-6.301 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2,
DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399,
LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.debian.org
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 2525) with ESMTP id CNGEsE8xgvQ4 for
NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check from: .loop. -
helo: .mail194c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: .megamailservers.)
FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
from mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (mail208c50.megamailservers.eu
[91.136.10.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
(256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bendel.debian.org
4 Jul 2024 12:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu;
s=maildub; t=1720094700; bh=5Um9/MplAQNd+svZJOunmBGElnorPOi9odLzGqxgObQ=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=QLjumGn/60xFVhN9BUbajEg0uTOZxqi/Uz8jodz7E1EE2Hi7W3VtjJFW4LGmbJGnC
Lt7Nym0B3iEmO+1/fxpnDfmt1lRnzu+Q65akTEd8eaEHbj8G7yo5OCpI4oVjRr7q9o
pn0upeaUIrxnepbAwXeozeebIuTSx2zuaH0xvL30=
from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de [89.183.193.109])
(authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with
ESMTP id 464C4rxR025870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for
Subject: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:04:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjgh
fggfgtgejudeftdfjphegsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefjrghnshcuoehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthhesl
hhoohhprdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfdvudekheefueevieelgefftdfhtedvlefgfefhieevveejud
elhffhleethfeknecukfhppeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdekledrudekfedrudelfedruddtleenucevlhh
ushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdhhvghlohepsg
gvnhguvghlrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhunhgtvgdquggvsghirghnqdhus
hgvrhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhpehlohhophdruggvsehlihhsthhsrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpnhg
spghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthheslhhoohhprdguvg
gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvf
fufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohho
phdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdethfeludejieeljeeugefgieekheeitdfggfehuedvvdfhjedute
ekkedtvdenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrgh
mpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuhhsvddrlhhotggrlhhnv
ghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhope
dupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghnrdhorhhg
X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=1.59
X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [1.59 / 6.00];
R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[megamailservers.eu:s=maildub]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[];

[Jeffrey Walton]

Post by Detlef Vollmann
Isn't this the usual DKIM problem with lists?
is from lists.debian.org.
That's why most lists these days rewrite the From: header.

One small nit: rewriting headers is not approved in the RFCs, so some
(many?) mail servers don't do it. I know the folks who run the Claws
Mail mailing list refuse to do it.

Also see Tolerating Mailing-List Modifications,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications-01.html>.

Jeff

[Jeff Pang]

I didn’t chech the header.
But loop.de should have its own signature.
Debian list server rewrite envelope address to list adress due to SRS
requirements.
But message header address is not changed as well as message body
(debian list seems not modifying message body), so DKIM for loop.de will
be valid, then DMARC for loop.de will pass as well.

Post by Detlef Vollmann
Isn't this the usual DKIM problem with lists?
is from lists.debian.org.
That's why most lists these days rewrite the From: header.
Detlef

Post by Hans
Me again, sorry.
Now I got my last mail back with the spam tag!
Re: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
--------------------
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SPAM-FACTOR: DKIM
OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail39c50.megamailservers.eu 464C5Iek122979
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=loop.de
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.debian.org
Authentication-Results: mail39c50.megamailservers.eu;
dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key)
header.b="QLjumGn/"
from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
mail39c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id
464C5Iek122979 for
from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org
(Postfix) with
QMQP id EA3E420682; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 required=4.0
tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
FOURLA,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST
autolearn=unavailable
autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bendel.debian.org
(Postfix) with
4 Jul 2024 12:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No,
score=-6.301 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2,
DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FOURLA=0.1,
KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399,
LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.debian.org
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 2525) with ESMTP id CNGEsE8xgvQ4 for
NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 HELO_IP_IN_CL_SUBNET=-1.2 (check from: .loop. -
helo: .mail194c50.megamailservers. - helo-domain: .megamailservers.)
FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -4.7
from mail194c50.megamailservers.eu (mail208c50.megamailservers.eu
[91.136.10.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
(256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by
bendel.debian.org
(Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC67D20677 for
4 Jul 2024 12:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=megamailservers.eu;
s=maildub; t=1720094700;
bh=5Um9/MplAQNd+svZJOunmBGElnorPOi9odLzGqxgObQ=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=QLjumGn/60xFVhN9BUbajEg0uTOZxqi/Uz8jodz7E1EE2Hi7W3VtjJFW4LGmbJGnC
Lt7Nym0B3iEmO+1/fxpnDfmt1lRnzu+Q65akTEd8eaEHbj8G7yo5OCpI4oVjRr7q9o
pn0upeaUIrxnepbAwXeozeebIuTSx2zuaH0xvL30=
from protheus2.localnet (a89-183-193-109.net-htp.de
[89.183.193.109])
(authenticated bits=0) by mail194c50.megamailservers.eu
(8.14.9/8.13.1) with
ESMTP id 464C4rxR025870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for
Subject: *****SPAM***** [SOLVED] Re: This is a testmail!
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:04:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0
gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjgh
fggfgtgejudeftdfjphegsehtufertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefjrghnshcuoehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthhesl
hhoohhprdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfdvudekheefueevieelgefftdfhtedvlefgfefhieevveejud
elhffhleethfeknecukfhppeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdekledrudekfedrudelfedruddtleenucevlhh
ushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpeekvddrudelhedrjeehrddutddtpdhhvghlohepsg
gvnhguvghlrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhunhgtvgdquggvsghirghnqdhus
hgvrhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhpehlohhophdruggvsehlihhsthhsrdguvggsihgrnhdrohhrghdpnhg
spghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehhrghnshdruhhllhhrihgthheslhhoohhprdguvg
gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudelgdegjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgem
ucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfdpgffpggdqveehtdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefhvf
fufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepjfgrnhhsuceohhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohho
phdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdethfeludejieeljeeugefgieekheeitdfggfehuedvvdfhjedute
ekkedtvdenucfkphepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrgh
mpehinhgvthepkeelrddukeefrdduleefrddutdelpdhhvghlohepphhrohhthhgvuhhsvddrlhhotggrlhhnv
ghtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhephhgrnhhsrdhulhhlrhhitghhsehlohhophdruggvpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhope
dupdhrtghpthhtohepuggvsghirghnqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdruggvsghirghnrdhorhhg
X-Rspamd-Status: No, score=1.59
X-Rspamd-Result: default: False [1.59 / 6.00];
R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[megamailservers.eu:s=maildub]; CTE_CASE(0.50)[];