chromebook

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

chromebook

mattias jonsson

Anyone install debian on a chromebook

I meen dualboot

I already have a partition

So if i start on a usb stick’

Where to install grub so i dont break chromeos

Skickades från E-post för Windows 10

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

Greg Wooledge
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--

Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
y'know, get a better email agent.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

Dan Purgert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
>> <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
>
> Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> y'know, get a better email agent

It's like he attempted to send a word doc as mail.  

Great lord cthulhu, is that what the latest iteration of outlook does?!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl0lK44ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEJ5gf/YrhR5DVLmnCbrt7lHT/0wsFYLND3LL9t2yhtkl7jXMQnBAvHaowznhI3
PMkKp4vm8CNog2j04BzwdpXRIUcNfLXIJc5Vg4IlpscSTyUcT7s/o2AqPWxD4iAS
ZgVddn95iT34P5OPAfHHFmo8OsIpy4U9oAJNmnajiizTfWG39m/m0Mt/o5ax+oEb
NB2KevVP6Y3lMgkum2t9BMOpfiyyGM3GjtnEfFgqdJ4hZ/sFVABZHNWrGnCU62CL
KtSmjo9cW0wRkRQwcll9YeicKIHGlbwv7WlJk/njnvnQkOa8ScpcJPVABj8qEHZA
C5gy+zZJLbUdnrUbJwQNbHZX3Z442w==
=+8Cn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

John Crawley (johnraff)
In reply to this post by Greg Wooledge
On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
>> <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
>
> Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> y'know, get a better email agent.
>
>
Of course text messages are best (and what I use all the time) but  
surely a decent mail agent on the receiver's end will display that OK?  
On Thunderbird the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it  
wasn't plain text till I checked the source.

--
John

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

andreimpopescu
On Mi, 10 iul 19, 10:35:33, John Crawley wrote:

> On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > y'know, get a better email agent.
> >
> Of course text messages are best (and what I use all the time) but surely a
> decent mail agent on the receiver's end will display that OK? On Thunderbird
> the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it wasn't plain text till I
> checked the source.
1. As far as I know html e-mail is not standardized.

   This means that one's messages might look entirely different at the
   receiver's end to what the sender intended.
   
   Computer output needed to diagnose problems is best sent unchanged.
   Good luck in figuring out how to do this in a html message.

   Bonus points for e-mail clients trying to apply the same formatting
   to the text part as well, making it less readable.

2. Some (many?) of us are reading messages on text-only clients.

   This may be for objective or subjective reasons, but it's probably
   quite common here.

   Sure, there are ways to display html content, but see 1.

3. The html (part) can add significant overhead.

   It's not a major issue for the few messages usually currently sent to
   the list, but if all posters would be using html it could have a
   significant impact for readers on a data cap.


Hope this explains,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

Reco
In reply to this post by John Crawley (johnraff)
        Hi.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:33AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:

> On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > > <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
> > > xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
> > > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta
> > > http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta
> > > name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
> > > medium)"><style><!--
> >
> > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > y'know, get a better email agent.
> >
> Of course text messages are best (and what I use all the time) but
> surely a decent mail agent on the receiver's end will display that OK?

A subverted XHTML produced by Microsoft Word? You're joking, right?
It will display *somehow*, that's for sure. But to display it as
"intended" you'll need something from M$.

> On Thunderbird the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it
> wasn't plain text till I checked the source.

It was readable in my mutt too. Still does not make it right.

Reco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

Joe Rowan
In reply to this post by andreimpopescu
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:21:39 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <[hidden email]> wrote:


> 2. Some (many?) of us are reading messages on text-only clients.
>
>    This may be for objective or subjective reasons, but it's probably
>    quite common here.
>
>    Sure, there are ways to display html content, but see 1.
>
> 3. The html (part) can add significant overhead.
>
>    It's not a major issue for the few messages usually currently sent
> to the list, but if all posters would be using html it could have a
>    significant impact for readers on a data cap.

Yes. The large majority of most HTML, on the web or in emails, is
formatting stuff. It's often difficult to actually spot the two or
three lines of text in half a dozen pages of font instructions and
special display tweaks for different browsers and mobiles.

I use Claws, which can do HTML but never does here.

--
Joe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by andreimpopescu
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:21:39AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Mi, 10 iul 19, 10:35:33, John Crawley wrote:
> > On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > >
> > > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > > y'know, get a better email agent.
> > >
> > Of course text messages are best (and what I use all the time) but surely a
> > decent mail agent on the receiver's end will display that OK? On Thunderbird
> > the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it wasn't plain text till I
> > checked the source.
>
> 1. As far as I know html e-mail is not standardized.
>
>    This means that one's messages might look entirely different at the
>    receiver's end to what the sender intended.
>    
>    Computer output needed to diagnose problems is best sent unchanged.
>    Good luck in figuring out how to do this in a html message.
>
>    Bonus points for e-mail clients trying to apply the same formatting
>    to the text part as well, making it less readable.
>
> 2. Some (many?) of us are reading messages on text-only clients.
>
>    This may be for objective or subjective reasons, but it's probably
>    quite common here.
>
>    Sure, there are ways to display html content, but see 1.
>
> 3. The html (part) can add significant overhead.
>
>    It's not a major issue for the few messages usually currently sent to
>    the list, but if all posters would be using html it could have a
>    significant impact for readers on a data cap.
4. html viewers are known for being exploitable in many and
   surprising ways.

   Complexity gotta give, somewhere.

   Some folks (go figure!) don't like the idea of their mail
   user agents being exploitable.

Cheers
-- t

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

Greg Wooledge
In reply to this post by Reco
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:31:13AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:33AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> > On Thunderbird the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it
> > wasn't plain text till I checked the source.
>
> It was readable in my mutt too. Still does not make it right.

Your mutt must be configured very differently than mine.  All I saw
was the raw HTML.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: mutt vs HTML (was: chromebook)

Reco
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:06:32AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:31:13AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:33AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> > > On Thunderbird the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it
> > > wasn't plain text till I checked the source.
> >
> > It was readable in my mutt too. Still does not make it right.
>
> Your mutt must be configured very differently than mine.  All I saw
> was the raw HTML.

A relevant snippet from .muttrc:

alternative_order text/plain text/html
unauto_view *
auto_view = text/html

An appropriate entry at .mailcap:

text/html; /usr/bin/w3m -dump -o display_link_number=true -I %{charset} -T text/html '%s'; copiousoutput; description=HTML Text; %nametemplate=%s.html; needsterminal; priority=1


Literally all it takes. As a bonus, sender's HTML is converted to a
plain text on reply.

Reco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

andreimpopescu
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On Mi, 10 iul 19, 09:25:02, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> 4. html viewers are known for being exploitable in many and
>    surprising ways.

Thanks, forgot about that one.

A recent example:
https://efail.de/

In the 'Responsible Disclosure' section there is nice coloured table
with popular clients. Note the green for mutt and Claws Mail ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

Kenneth Parker-2
In reply to this post by Greg Wooledge


On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--

Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
y'know, get a better email agent.

As a Gmail User, but with a corporate (Universe?) email address ([hidden email]), running on a hosted Ubuntu 16.04.6 Server with Exim4 4.86.2 running its Mail.  I administer it via ssh, and get email via alpine 2.20.  I used to use that corporate email for my technical email lists, until Gmail started putting MY OWN email into my Spam Folder.  I just tried it now.  Google's Error message:  "Why is this message in spam?  It is in violation of Google's recommended sender guidelines",  So now, Google is running the Internet?  Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text only!  

I'm sorry to say:  This issue is bigger than a Bread Basket!

That said, I also would be interested in Booting a USB Stick on a Chromebook.

Please give me feedback:  How badly did Gmail mangle my text?  Thanks!

Kenneth Parker

P.S.  Just for Grins, I'm going to enroll [hidden email] into the Debian Users list so I can participate in this text/html/Microsoft Word issue.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML mail (was: chromebook)

John Crawley (johnraff)
In reply to this post by Reco
On 2019-07-10 15:31, Reco wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:33AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
>> On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>> <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>
>>> Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
>>> text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
>>> y'know, get a better email agent.
>>>
>> Of course text messages are best (and what I use all the time) but
>> surely a decent mail agent on the receiver's end will display that OK?
>
> A subverted XHTML produced by Microsoft Word? You're joking, right?
> It will display *somehow*, that's for sure. But to display it as
> "intended" you'll need something from M$.

Well, just to display the text, without the html tags is not that hard.  
As to how it was "intended" to be, who knows?

>> On Thunderbird the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it
>> wasn't plain text till I checked the source.
>
> It was readable in my mutt too. Still does not make it right.

I was never trying to claim that it was OK to send messages as html - I  
always use plain text myself - but I thought there might be something to  
be said for user agents that could deal with html in some sane way, and  
without exposing the recipient to attacks. Simply not following any web  
links would be enough I'd have thought? Or are there some more subtle  
attack paths?

As you've pointed out, mutt does OK. If all the posters to debian-user  
refrained from including html in their messages, it would not remove the  
need for MUAs to cope with it.

--
John

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML mail (was: chromebook)

andreimpopescu
On Jo, 11 iul 19, 12:31:07, John Crawley wrote:
>
> I was never trying to claim that it was OK to send messages as html - I
> always use plain text myself - but I thought there might be something to be
> said for user agents that could deal with html in some sane way, and without
> exposing the recipient to attacks. Simply not following any web links would
> be enough I'd have thought? Or are there some more subtle attack paths?

Yes, look up the EFAIL vulnerability (I posted a link in another
message). It enabled a potential attacker to trick e-mail clients
parsing html e-mail to decrypt an (old) encrypted message.

In most cases users only had to open the message.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML mail

John Crawley (johnraff)
On 2019-07-11 15:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Jo, 11 iul 19, 12:31:07, John Crawley wrote:
>> ...user agents that could deal with html in some sane way, and without
>> exposing the recipient to attacks. Simply not following any web links would
>> be enough I'd have thought? Or are there some more subtle attack paths?
>
> Yes, look up the EFAIL vulnerability (I posted a link in another
> message). It enabled a potential attacker to trick e-mail clients
> parsing html e-mail to decrypt an (old) encrypted message.
>
> In most cases users only had to open the message.
Since enforcing no-html, and particularly no-malevolent-html on all
incoming mail is not an option available to us, the only remaining
choices for a "good" MUA would then be:
A) Display html as-is, tags and all
B) Strip out the tags and display what's left, like html2text

I think B) is the better option.

--
John

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML mail

andreimpopescu
On Jo, 11 iul 19, 15:52:56, John Crawley wrote:

> On 2019-07-11 15:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Jo, 11 iul 19, 12:31:07, John Crawley wrote:
> > > ...user agents that could deal with html in some sane way, and without
> > > exposing the recipient to attacks. Simply not following any web links would
> > > be enough I'd have thought? Or are there some more subtle attack paths?
> >
> > Yes, look up the EFAIL vulnerability (I posted a link in another
> > message). It enabled a potential attacker to trick e-mail clients
> > parsing html e-mail to decrypt an (old) encrypted message.
> >
> > In most cases users only had to open the message.
> Since enforcing no-html, and particularly no-malevolent-html on all incoming
> mail is not an option available to us, the only remaining choices for a
> "good" MUA would then be:
> A) Display html as-is, tags and all
> B) Strip out the tags and display what's left, like html2text
>
> I think B) is the better option.
C) Treat *all* message parts as potentially harmful, not just some
attachments. If additional parsing is needed (check signature, parse
html, etc.) do so in a safe way.

Of course, this is not easy to do, especially if you insist on parsing
all the bells and whistles in the html/css, which is probably why so
many clients were vulnerable.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML mail

Gene Heskett-4
In reply to this post by John Crawley (johnraff)
On Thursday 11 July 2019 02:52:56 John Crawley wrote:

> On 2019-07-11 15:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Jo, 11 iul 19, 12:31:07, John Crawley wrote:
> >> ...user agents that could deal with html in some sane way, and
> >> without exposing the recipient to attacks. Simply not following any
> >> web links would be enough I'd have thought? Or are there some more
> >> subtle attack paths?
> >
> > Yes, look up the EFAIL vulnerability (I posted a link in another
> > message). It enabled a potential attacker to trick e-mail clients
> > parsing html e-mail to decrypt an (old) encrypted message.
> >
> > In most cases users only had to open the message.
>
> Since enforcing no-html, and particularly no-malevolent-html on all
> incoming mail is not an option available to us, the only remaining
> choices for a "good" MUA would then be:
> A) Display html as-is, tags and all
> B) Strip out the tags and display what's left, like html2text
>
> I think B) is the better option.

The TDE version of kmail will show a blank message window if there is no
plain text content, but will show a click here to see the html. I rather
like it that way, but spammy crap gets fed to sa-learn spam w/o a reply.

Works for me.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML mail

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by andreimpopescu
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:10:16AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 11 iul 19, 15:52:56, John Crawley wrote:

[...]

> > A) Display html as-is, tags and all
> > B) Strip out the tags and display what's left, like html2text
> >
> > I think B) is the better option.
>
> C) Treat *all* message parts as potentially harmful, not just some
> attachments. If additional parsing is needed (check signature, parse
> html, etc.) do so in a safe way.

D) Show the HTML /as is/, literally, as if it were text. I know it's
hard on the receiver, but then, at least, there's someone motivated
enough to yell at the sender to fix his/her MUA.

Don't hide problems. They'll bite you in your behind.

Cheers
-- t

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chromebook

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by Kenneth Parker-2
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:33:58PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > > <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> > http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type
> > content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft
> > Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
> >
> > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > y'know, get a better email agent.
> >
>
> As a Gmail User, but with a corporate (Universe?) email address (
> [hidden email]), running on a hosted Ubuntu 16.04.6 Server
> with Exim4 4.86.2 running its Mail.  I administer it via ssh, and get email
> via alpine 2.20.  I used to use that corporate email for my technical email
> lists, until Gmail started putting MY OWN email into my Spam Folder.  I
> just tried it now.  Google's Error message:  "Why is this message in spam?
> It is in violation of Google's recommended sender guidelines",  So now,
> Google is running the Internet?  Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
> only!
Most probably you'll have to implement SPF and/or DKIM [1, 2]

I manage my own mail server. Because I Want To Know (TM).

As this was happening to me more and more (people "on" some variant of
googlemail, or hotmail/outlook/some other Microsoft mail thingy, etc.
not receiving my mails -- and digging further yes, receiving them in
their spam folders and thus not seeing them), I bit the bullet and
went for SPF/DKIM (I hadn't the guts for DMARC yet, I don't particularly
like that one).

I think bigcorps love that, because they hate the decentralized nature
of mail. Spam pressure plus measures making the live of small mail
providers help centralization.

And this spam folder thingy was too tasty to pass on: SMTP RFCs
force you to either deliver a mail or bounce it [3]. Since bouncing
has become unattractive (cf. backscatter spam), the temptation to
silently drop things was high, but not permitted by RFC. Ha! Deliver
to a spam folder and tell the users that it is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to
"open" a spam mail, heck, it's even dangerous to sneeze in the general
direction of your spam folder [4] -- Tada! "no, we don't drop any mail,
missus, we deliver it. It's the user who's doing that".

This is what I call Emergent Evil. I thon't think there's a single
person out there scheming out those things, but a corporation as
a whole does come up with that kind of perverse behaviour.

Of course, most of the spam I receive these days (i do look into
my spam from time to time :-) has correct SPF and DKIM records :-/

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKIM
[3] There's also reject at the DATA phase, which is quite attractive
   for smaller sites.
[4] Of course, if your MUA "opens" HTML mails and Word attachments...

-- tomás

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Own MTA is hard (was: chromebook)

Reco
        Hi.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:22:40AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:33:58PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > > > <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> > > http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type
> > > content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft
> > > Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
> > >
> > > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > > y'know, get a better email agent.
> > >
> >
> > As a Gmail User, but with a corporate (Universe?) email address (
> > [hidden email]), running on a hosted Ubuntu 16.04.6 Server
> > with Exim4 4.86.2 running its Mail.  I administer it via ssh, and get email
> > via alpine 2.20.  I used to use that corporate email for my technical email
> > lists, until Gmail started putting MY OWN email into my Spam Folder.  I
> > just tried it now.  Google's Error message:  "Why is this message in spam?
> > It is in violation of Google's recommended sender guidelines",  So now,
> > Google is running the Internet?  Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
> > only!
>
> Most probably you'll have to implement SPF and/or DKIM [1, 2]

Both, and a DMARC too. Also, valid PTR records. While not required by
any RFC, valid PTRs are considered mandatory by some big players like
GMail.


> As this was happening to me more and more (people "on" some variant of
> googlemail, or hotmail/outlook/some other Microsoft mail thingy, etc.
> not receiving my mails -- and digging further yes, receiving them in
> their spam folders and thus not seeing them), I bit the bullet and
> went for SPF/DKIM (I hadn't the guts for DMARC yet, I don't particularly
> like that one).

DKIM is very straightforward. There are some "gotchas" if you're sending
mails to the maillists - some maillists just love to modify arbitrary
e-mail headers, which leads to failed DKIM checks - but they can be
solved.

Reco

123