[Mailman-Users] cause of bounces
gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Wed Oct 18 14:30:10 EDT 2017
On 10/18/2017 11:51 AM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> Like tnеtсоnsulting.nеt being a benign minor encoding change in a couple
> of characters?
No. That is not a simple content encoding change. Content (re)encoding
changes the representation of the same encoded data.
<е> 1077, Hex 0435, Octal 2065 != <e> 101, Hex 65, Octal 145
<с> 1089, Hex 0441, Octal 2101 != <c> 99, Hex 63, Octal 143
<о> 1086, Hex 043e, Octal 2076 != <o> 111, Hex 6f, Octal 157
An MTA changing the encoding method of data to / from: base 64 /
quoted-printable / 8-bit, is distinctly different than what you have
done, which is changing actual encoded data.
The (decimal) number 17 can be encoded multiple ways:
10001 = binary base 2
25 = hex base 6
21 = octal base 8
17 = decimal base 10
11 = hexadecimal base 16
All five encoded numbers represent the same value (decimal) 17.
What you have done (in the spirit of a white hat) is actually a
homograph attack. Something quite different from simple encoding
Quite similar to a computer seeing a the following three characters as
quite distinctly different things, each with different computational
> Just because the authors of the RFC have also chosen to stick the square
> peg in the round hole doesn't make the hole any less round, nor the peg
> any less square.
> Somewhere I've a 10-year old e-mail from Whit Diffie explaining how SSL
> was a PR solution to a marketing problem. So this kind of
> problem-finding and problem-solving has made to SMTP RFCs now, colour me
I'd be curious to read said email, if it's convenient to dig up.
Grant. . . .
unix || die
More information about the Mailman-Users