~begriffs

~begriffs/begriffs-test

Last active 2 years ago
View more

Recent activity

Re: What's everyone working on lately? 3 months ago

From Joe Nelson to ~skeeto/public-inbox

Chuck Jungmann wrote:
> I have been working on a library for processing GNU conforming command
> line options.  My objective is to make the code for processing the
> options easier to scan and modify. I was eventually going to post it
> to the list for feedback, but I'll ride your invitation to post a link
> to it right now:
> 
> https://github.com/cjungmann/readargs
> 
> I'm curious to know if anyone beside me would find this useful. I'd
> also welcome suggestions or comments about where I may be using bad or
> confusing practices.

I just happened to read an article [0] by Chris Wellons about his

LDLIBS in portable makefiles 7 months ago

From Joe Nelson to ~skeeto/public-inbox

Hi Chris, I notice that your makefile article [1] uses the macro name
LDLIBS for -l options like -lm. That's reminiscent of GNU make's .c
suffix rule [2]:

	LINK.c = $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $(TARGET_ARCH)

	.c:
		$(LINK.c) $^ $(LOADLIBES) $(LDLIBS) -o $@

Do you know why they separate the -L flags in LDFLAGS vs -l flags in
LDLIBS? I realize that GCC's linker has trouble if the -l flags precede
the source file(s), but my question is why don't they put all the flags
(both -L and -l) together into LDFLAGS and put that macro at the end?

Re: Initial pre-release of aerc 1 year, 6 months ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

> Fine, you're in love with mutt. Keep using it. But I could do without
> the ridiculous hatemails to my public-inbox. If aerc isn't for you,
> fine, no one is making you use it.

No problem, no problem -- sorry for my email having a sort of "hater"
tone. I guess I wasn't being particularly constructive, other than
pointing out what *appeared* to be your unfamiliarity with mutt, but
turned out to be deliberate and informed choices.

Re: Initial pre-release of aerc 1 year, 6 months ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

TLDR; "The world's best email client" is a little premature. It pays to
invest some time learning how mature tools work rather than dismissing
them. http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/

(But also, have fun creating stuff, sounds like a good learning
experience.)

> If you’re coming from mutt,

I am, and I'm not sure you're doing it justice.

> you’ll appreciate its more efficient & reliable networking

Can you elaborate? I fetch IMAP with mbsync into a directory tree in the

Re: Links between sites? 2 years ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

William Casarin wrote:
> Does anyone else find it kind of awkward to navigate between the various
> subdomains? It would be nice if there were links between git/list/todo
> etc. Right now I have to jump into the url bar and do it manually.

Totally agree.
https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3C7CA82DDF-AE3E-4550-B1A6-EDF015807A14%40begriffs.com%3E

Re: Some sr.ht messages going to junk folder 2 years ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

I condensed what we learned into an article so that perhaps other people will be encouraged to use mailing lists.

https://begriffs.com/posts/2018-09-18-dmarc-mailing-list.html

Re: Some sr.ht messages going to junk folder 2 years ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

>> I think it's because it was not signed by DKIM. Thus it had to fall back to an
>> SPF check and that one failed alignment.
> 
> This seems unlikely, ProtonMail always signs outgoing messages with DKIM. I
> can't find the message you're referring to, can you point me to the lists.sr.ht
> link?

Aha, do you know what it was? The message was generated from https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/lists.sr.ht/49#comment-346

I'm guessing the message was created through the web interface, so there was no DKIM signature to relay.

Re: Some sr.ht messages going to junk folder 2 years ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

> I'm fully satisfied in my understanding now, and see why DMARC's requirement that RFC5321.MailFrom == RFC5322.From is overzealous and broken.

The plot thickens! It turns out that DMARC checks alignment in two different ways:

1. For SPF, it checks that RFC5321.MailFrom == RFC5322.From
2. For DKIM, it checks that the message has one valid DKIM signature with "d=RFC5322.From".

(nice illustration: https://dmarcian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Header-Aligned.png)

Secondly, (and importantly!) DMARC will pass the message if *either* SPF or DKIM passes, and only fail the message if both SPF and DKIM fail. That way SPF-only and and DKIM-only messages can pass DMARC, but messages without either SPF/DKIM will always fail.

Thus I hypothesize that any domain which signs with DKIM will work fine on sr.ht even with DMARC enabled. As long as sr.ht does not modify the message in a way that breaks DKIM then it can continue to use proper From:, Sender: etc headers.

So what made that previous message I was talking about go to my spam folder? (For reference, it was message-id cmu-lmtpd-2726116-1536590260-0@sloti2d1t21) I think it's because it was not signed by DKIM. Thus it had to fall back to an SPF check and that one failed alignment.

Re: Some sr.ht messages going to junk folder 2 years ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

> Ok, let's imagine every email is cryprographically signed by the author,
> and therefore cannot be forged.
> 
> Then, a mailing list is still possible. The list server:
> - takes a signed email it receives
> - prepends some headers like List-ID and Sender at the top,
>  before the part that is covered by a signature,
>  and leaves the From header intact
> - sends the resulting email to everyone subscribed

Nice point about List-ID. Many lists modify the subject line, prepending [foo] as identification, and this subject change violates DKIM if the subject is covered in the signature. Similarly some lists append unsubscribe links to the body of an email, but setting a List-Unsubscribe header instead can allow the body to remain unchanged.

> Then the receiving end:
> ...

Re: Some sr.ht messages going to junk folder 2 years ago

From Joe Nelson to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

>> what's to stop it from … impersonating me?
> 
> The DKIM signature.

Oh duh, we already determined that. I somehow lost sight of it.