Re: w1: coding style and checkpatch fixes

[Steffen Vogel]

Hi Linus,

Thanks! Its hopefully fixed now.

For those who are interested. Rspamd, by default, includes the sender
address into the list of signed headers:
https://www.rspamd.com/doc/modules/dkim_signing.html#default-sign_headers-after-173

> End result: the DKIM signature is guaranteed to fail after the email
> has gone through a mailing list.

There is RFC6377 which discusses this problem. On possible solution is
a mailing list service which understands DKIM and can check/sign the
messages.

See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377

> You do have a few other oddities in there (the duplication of the
> common fields), but they shouldn't matter.

This is actually according to RFC. Listing signed header-fields
multiple times prohibits them from beeing modified and resigned my other
MTAs.

Thanks again,
Steffen

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 03:53:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ This is not about your patch series per se, only about your email settings ]
> 
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Steffen Vogel <post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This is my first series of patches for the Linux kernel.
> > I started by familiarizing myself with coding style and
> > satisfying my inner OCD by cleaning the 1-wire subsystem.
> 
> Sadly, your DKIM setup is wrong, causing all the emails to be marked
> as spam when they go through a mailing list.
> 
> Your DKIM header looks like this:
> 
>   DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=steffenvogel.de;
>           s=2017; t=1540764601;
> h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:
>           message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:
>           content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
>           in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
> 
> and the problem with that is the "sender" field in there.
> 
> A good mailing list will not change the contents of your email, or
> most of the other headers, but it *will* set the sender field to the
> mailing list.
> 
> 
> In other words, putting the sender field as part of the DKIM-checked
> headers is just wrong. It's a somewhat common mistake, but it's still
> wrong. I wonder where people get their setups from, because I think
> there is some DKIM guide on the internet that is actively spreading
> this bad behavior.
> 
> 
>                  Linus