You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to sysadmins@spamassassin.apache.org by Henrik K <he...@hege.li> on 2022/04/27 14:34:57 UTC
HTTPS for mirrors
There's really no reason these days for not using https.
Only three mirrors work with it right now:
sa-update.razx.cloud
sa-update.pccc.com
sa-update.mailfud.org
Could maybe others prepare for it? sa-update seems to happily use https://
mirrors starting from 3.4.0, so there shouldn't be any reason not to update
these.
Btw I just updated DNS to https too:
mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
Apparently spamassassin.apache.org has had https-redirect for a long time,
which broke the old checkSAupdateMirrors.sh script too.
Cheers,
Henrik
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Henrik. I'm agnostic on this change but I thought it was
interesting it took Dave some trouble to setup http vs https.
On 4/30/2022 11:46 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> If you look at current MIRRORED.BY, that's how it already done.
>
> Only 3.3 skips any non-http:// lines. So 3.3 rule updates need to be
> officially deprecated before changing last http-mirror. And amazingly there
> are still active users as seen from the "if has()" reports..
>
> I'll leave general timetable for the list consensus, it's up to the
> volunteers..
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> That's quite interesting, Dave. Thanks.
>>
>> Henrik, do we have a way of supporting both http and https? So like one
>> config line is http and another is https? Then we can ask mirrors to start
>> moving to https with a goal perhaps of next May?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KAM
>>
>> On 4/29/2022 12:27 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-28 07:30, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>> I see no reason to make HTTPS mandatory for mirrors at this point.
>>>> It does mean an extra layer that can break and the impersonation
>>>> attacks that it enables would be extremely complicated to mount, so
>>>> may be entirely theoretical. I would rather keep unencrypted
>>>> mirrors for the sake of availability than drive away helpful
>>>> collaborators just because they haven't had a free hour recently to
>>>> make HTTPS work.
>>> I don't care either way, but it is literally more work for me to
>>> maintain a HTTP mirror than not.
>>>
>>> Why? My web server configuration all starts with a default "HTTP? 301
>>> redirect to HTTPS" rule, so getting HTTP content to bypass that is
>>> literally more lines of configuration, and extra testing when upgrading
>>> software or moving stuff around.
>>>
>>> It isn't a big deal. The "work" is already done, and I mirror
>>> torbrowser and sometimes tails as well and there is a stronger use-case
>>> for maintaining HTTP indefinitely there, so adding one more hostname to
>>> the "okay, serve it with http too" list isn't even on my radar of
>>> things to care about.
>>>
>>> I do care about encryption in general though.
>>>
>>> HTTPS is an inconsequential amount of overhead and has been for a
>>> decade or so (from my perspective). And I have trouble imagining any
>>> machine that is simultaneously powerful enough to run SpamAssassin and
>>> also finds the overhead of HTTPS as consequential.
>>>
>>> As noted elsewhere in the thread, I'm one of the mirrors that offers
>>> HTTPS already, this is because it is already part of my provisioning
>>> system when I add a site and like allowing HTTP at all, it would be
>>> more work to carve out an exception.
>>>
>>> I have no preference or vote in either direction here specifically, but
>>> for my part I consider HTTP legacy and am a strong believer in
>>> replacing HTTP services with a static 301 response and calling it a
>>> day.
>> --
>> Kevin A. McGrail
>> KMcGrail@Apache.org
>>
>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Giovanni Bechis <gi...@paclan.it>.
On 5/1/22 05:46, Henrik K wrote:
>
> If you look at current MIRRORED.BY, that's how it already done.
>
> Only 3.3 skips any non-http:// lines. So 3.3 rule updates need to be
> officially deprecated before changing last http-mirror. And amazingly there
> are still active users as seen from the "if has()" reports..
>
on my mirror ~10% requests have http user-agent sa-update/svn*/3.3.x, this is not a correct calculated percent
because some users are checking the mirrors more often then others.
Giovanni
> I'll leave general timetable for the list consensus, it's up to the
> volunteers..
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> That's quite interesting, Dave. Thanks.
>>
>> Henrik, do we have a way of supporting both http and https? So like one
>> config line is http and another is https? Then we can ask mirrors to start
>> moving to https with a goal perhaps of next May?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KAM
>>
>> On 4/29/2022 12:27 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-28 07:30, Bill Cole wrote:
>>>> I see no reason to make HTTPS mandatory for mirrors at this point.
>>>> It does mean an extra layer that can break and the impersonation
>>>> attacks that it enables would be extremely complicated to mount, so
>>>> may be entirely theoretical. I would rather keep unencrypted
>>>> mirrors for the sake of availability than drive away helpful
>>>> collaborators just because they haven't had a free hour recently to
>>>> make HTTPS work.
>>>
>>> I don't care either way, but it is literally more work for me to
>>> maintain a HTTP mirror than not.
>>>
>>> Why? My web server configuration all starts with a default "HTTP? 301
>>> redirect to HTTPS" rule, so getting HTTP content to bypass that is
>>> literally more lines of configuration, and extra testing when upgrading
>>> software or moving stuff around.
>>>
>>> It isn't a big deal. The "work" is already done, and I mirror
>>> torbrowser and sometimes tails as well and there is a stronger use-case
>>> for maintaining HTTP indefinitely there, so adding one more hostname to
>>> the "okay, serve it with http too" list isn't even on my radar of
>>> things to care about.
>>>
>>> I do care about encryption in general though.
>>>
>>> HTTPS is an inconsequential amount of overhead and has been for a
>>> decade or so (from my perspective). And I have trouble imagining any
>>> machine that is simultaneously powerful enough to run SpamAssassin and
>>> also finds the overhead of HTTPS as consequential.
>>>
>>> As noted elsewhere in the thread, I'm one of the mirrors that offers
>>> HTTPS already, this is because it is already part of my provisioning
>>> system when I add a site and like allowing HTTP at all, it would be
>>> more work to carve out an exception.
>>>
>>> I have no preference or vote in either direction here specifically, but
>>> for my part I consider HTTP legacy and am a strong believer in
>>> replacing HTTP services with a static 301 response and calling it a
>>> day.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin A. McGrail
>> KMcGrail@Apache.org
>>
>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
If you look at current MIRRORED.BY, that's how it already done.
Only 3.3 skips any non-http:// lines. So 3.3 rule updates need to be
officially deprecated before changing last http-mirror. And amazingly there
are still active users as seen from the "if has()" reports..
I'll leave general timetable for the list consensus, it's up to the
volunteers..
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> That's quite interesting, Dave. Thanks.
>
> Henrik, do we have a way of supporting both http and https? So like one
> config line is http and another is https? Then we can ask mirrors to start
> moving to https with a goal perhaps of next May?
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
> On 4/29/2022 12:27 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
> > On 2022-04-28 07:30, Bill Cole wrote:
> > > I see no reason to make HTTPS mandatory for mirrors at this point.
> > > It does mean an extra layer that can break and the impersonation
> > > attacks that it enables would be extremely complicated to mount, so
> > > may be entirely theoretical. I would rather keep unencrypted
> > > mirrors for the sake of availability than drive away helpful
> > > collaborators just because they haven't had a free hour recently to
> > > make HTTPS work.
> >
> > I don't care either way, but it is literally more work for me to
> > maintain a HTTP mirror than not.
> >
> > Why? My web server configuration all starts with a default "HTTP? 301
> > redirect to HTTPS" rule, so getting HTTP content to bypass that is
> > literally more lines of configuration, and extra testing when upgrading
> > software or moving stuff around.
> >
> > It isn't a big deal. The "work" is already done, and I mirror
> > torbrowser and sometimes tails as well and there is a stronger use-case
> > for maintaining HTTP indefinitely there, so adding one more hostname to
> > the "okay, serve it with http too" list isn't even on my radar of
> > things to care about.
> >
> > I do care about encryption in general though.
> >
> > HTTPS is an inconsequential amount of overhead and has been for a
> > decade or so (from my perspective). And I have trouble imagining any
> > machine that is simultaneously powerful enough to run SpamAssassin and
> > also finds the overhead of HTTPS as consequential.
> >
> > As noted elsewhere in the thread, I'm one of the mirrors that offers
> > HTTPS already, this is because it is already part of my provisioning
> > system when I add a site and like allowing HTTP at all, it would be
> > more work to carve out an exception.
> >
> > I have no preference or vote in either direction here specifically, but
> > for my part I consider HTTP legacy and am a strong believer in
> > replacing HTTP services with a static 301 response and calling it a
> > day.
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> KMcGrail@Apache.org
>
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
That's quite interesting, Dave. Thanks.
Henrik, do we have a way of supporting both http and https? So like one
config line is http and another is https? Then we can ask mirrors to
start moving to https with a goal perhaps of next May?
Regards,
KAM
On 4/29/2022 12:27 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2022-04-28 07:30, Bill Cole wrote:
>> I see no reason to make HTTPS mandatory for mirrors at this point. It
>> does mean an extra layer that can break and the impersonation attacks
>> that it enables would be extremely complicated to mount, so may be
>> entirely theoretical. I would rather keep unencrypted mirrors for the
>> sake of availability than drive away helpful collaborators just
>> because they haven't had a free hour recently to make HTTPS work.
>
> I don't care either way, but it is literally more work for me to
> maintain a HTTP mirror than not.
>
> Why? My web server configuration all starts with a default "HTTP? 301
> redirect to HTTPS" rule, so getting HTTP content to bypass that is
> literally more lines of configuration, and extra testing when
> upgrading software or moving stuff around.
>
> It isn't a big deal. The "work" is already done, and I mirror
> torbrowser and sometimes tails as well and there is a stronger
> use-case for maintaining HTTP indefinitely there, so adding one more
> hostname to the "okay, serve it with http too" list isn't even on my
> radar of things to care about.
>
> I do care about encryption in general though.
>
> HTTPS is an inconsequential amount of overhead and has been for a
> decade or so (from my perspective). And I have trouble imagining any
> machine that is simultaneously powerful enough to run SpamAssassin and
> also finds the overhead of HTTPS as consequential.
>
> As noted elsewhere in the thread, I'm one of the mirrors that offers
> HTTPS already, this is because it is already part of my provisioning
> system when I add a site and like allowing HTTP at all, it would be
> more work to carve out an exception.
>
> I have no preference or vote in either direction here specifically,
> but for my part I consider HTTP legacy and am a strong believer in
> replacing HTTP services with a static 301 response and calling it a day.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
KMcGrail@Apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Dave Warren <dw...@thedave.ca>.
On 2022-04-28 07:30, Bill Cole wrote:
> I see no reason to make HTTPS mandatory for mirrors at this point. It
> does mean an extra layer that can break and the impersonation attacks
> that it enables would be extremely complicated to mount, so may be
> entirely theoretical. I would rather keep unencrypted mirrors for the
> sake of availability than drive away helpful collaborators just because
> they haven't had a free hour recently to make HTTPS work.
I don't care either way, but it is literally more work for me to
maintain a HTTP mirror than not.
Why? My web server configuration all starts with a default "HTTP? 301
redirect to HTTPS" rule, so getting HTTP content to bypass that is
literally more lines of configuration, and extra testing when upgrading
software or moving stuff around.
It isn't a big deal. The "work" is already done, and I mirror torbrowser
and sometimes tails as well and there is a stronger use-case for
maintaining HTTP indefinitely there, so adding one more hostname to the
"okay, serve it with http too" list isn't even on my radar of things to
care about.
I do care about encryption in general though.
HTTPS is an inconsequential amount of overhead and has been for a decade
or so (from my perspective). And I have trouble imagining any machine
that is simultaneously powerful enough to run SpamAssassin and also
finds the overhead of HTTPS as consequential.
As noted elsewhere in the thread, I'm one of the mirrors that offers
HTTPS already, this is because it is already part of my provisioning
system when I add a site and like allowing HTTP at all, it would be more
work to carve out an exception.
I have no preference or vote in either direction here specifically, but
for my part I consider HTTP legacy and am a strong believer in replacing
HTTP services with a static 301 response and calling it a day.
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 09:30:21AM -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
>
> and the impersonation attacks that it enables would be extremely
> complicated to mount, so may be entirely theoretical.
Of course it is. It's probably thousand times more likely that a mirror
itself is hacked and it's files replaced. But don't you love to see a warm
and fuzzy secure lock on your connection?
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2022-04-28 at 06:40:58 UTC-0400 (Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:40:58 +0200
(CEST))
Fossies Administrator <sy...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Henrik K wrote:
>
>>
>> There's really no reason these days for not using https.
>>
>> Only three mirrors work with it right now:
>>
>> sa-update.razx.cloud
>> sa-update.pccc.com
>> sa-update.mailfud.org
>>
>> Could maybe others prepare for it? sa-update seems to happily use
>> https://
>> mirrors starting from 3.4.0, so there shouldn't be any reason not to
>> update
>> these.
>>
>> Btw I just updated DNS to https too:
>> mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org.
>> "https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
>>
>> Apparently spamassassin.apache.org has had https-redirect for a long
>> time,
>> which broke the old checkSAupdateMirrors.sh script too.
>
> Unfortunately my server fossies.org currently uses a commercial
> certificate only usable for the names "fossies.org" and
> "www.fossies.org" but not for "sa-update.fossies.org" and some first
> general tests some months ago using Let's Encrypt were not yet
> successful.
It is easy enough to adjust the URL for your mirror to align with a
certificate that works. There's nothing magical about the 'sa-update'
hostname.
FWIW, I've had the best LE experience using the "acme.sh" tool
(https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh) rather than the
Python-based Certbot tool. It has support for LE and for some other free
certificate services.
> Since I don't know when I have time for a new attempt (probably
> summer/autumn after a big hardware migration) and the https request
> seems understandable you may remove the server "sa-update.fossies.org"
> if meaningful (relatively easy to get over, since it only has a weight
> of 1).
I see no reason to make HTTPS mandatory for mirrors at this point. It
does mean an extra layer that can break and the impersonation attacks
that it enables would be extremely complicated to mount, so may be
entirely theoretical. I would rather keep unencrypted mirrors for the
sake of availability than drive away helpful collaborators just because
they haven't had a free hour recently to make HTTPS work.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 07:41:56AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> By default, the data is cryptographically verified. An admin has to
> specifically turn off that feature.
>
> There's little benefits of using HTTPS in this specific setting and it's
> just an extra requirement on our volunteer mirrors. It will add time, CPU
> load, and even a small amount of bandwidth increase. All to achieve nothing.
>
> >From a security analysis, this is public data so it's a very low risk with
> no data toxicity.
>
> I just don't see the benefit. As a security expert, I also make sure to
> focus my time where it's best utilized. So I am recommending that you and
> I can spend our time elsewhere as well as our mirror volunteers :-)
I spent few hours to prove that it works and simple to activate, making
things more future proof. No one is forcing mirrors to migrate (sad to say
I'm not a dictator), but I'd suggest everyone does. Even my Intel Atom
server handles all the SSL with few percent CPU load - talking about the
CPU/bandwidth wastes more time..
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
By default, the data is cryptographically verified. An admin has to
specifically turn off that feature.
There's little benefits of using HTTPS in this specific setting and it's
just an extra requirement on our volunteer mirrors. It will add time, CPU
load, and even a small amount of bandwidth increase. All to achieve nothing.
From a security analysis, this is public data so it's a very low risk with
no data toxicity.
I just don't see the benefit. As a security expert, I also make sure to
focus my time where it's best utilized. So I am recommending that you and
I can spend our time elsewhere as well as our mirror volunteers :-)
-KAM
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 07:36 Henrik K <he...@hege.li> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 07:26:41AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > We discussed this a year or two ago. The data on there is not sensitive
> and
> > is cryptographically verified by spamassassin before being used. Can you
> > name a single reason the data needs to be encrypted in transit? KAM
>
> It's only verified if the user chooses to do so, is not downloading stuff
> manually or whatever. Regardless, can YOU name a single reason why
> transmitted data should not be encrypted in the year 2022, as it's trivial
> to do so? Strange debate from a security expert.
>
>
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Bill Cole <sa...@billmail.scconsult.com>.
On 2022-04-28 at 07:36:45 UTC-0400 (Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:36:45 +0300)
Henrik K <sy...@spamassassin.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 07:26:41AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> We discussed this a year or two ago. The data on there is not
>> sensitive and
>> is cryptographically verified by spamassassin before being used. Can
>> you
>> name a single reason the data needs to be encrypted in transit?
Targeted host impersonation attacks. Even if an attacker couldn't inject
a signed package using the right key this way, they could prevent
updates by injecting an old package with a new name or arbitrary signed
packages using an impersonating key.
I think it is only prudent to treat SA rules and config as code, and
assume that a malicious actor who can inject arbitrary rules and config
can take over a machine, particularly on machines using spamd (often
running as root so that it can support per-user rules.) We've closed the
obvious paths for that, but I don't think we can or should assume that
the worst thing bad rules can do is make SA mislabel mail (bad enough in
itself.)
> It's only verified if the user chooses to do so, is not downloading
> stuff
> manually or whatever. Regardless, can YOU name a single reason why
> transmitted data should not be encrypted in the year 2022, as it's
> trivial
> to do so? Strange debate from a security expert.
We've already seen one described in this thread by a mirror admin. It is
apparently non-trivial to set up and maintain a working certificate
configuration. Host authentication is the one compelling reason for
using HTTPS with public data, so being lenient in certificate validation
is not a solution.
--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 07:26:41AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> We discussed this a year or two ago. The data on there is not sensitive and
> is cryptographically verified by spamassassin before being used. Can you
> name a single reason the data needs to be encrypted in transit? KAM
It's only verified if the user chooses to do so, is not downloading stuff
manually or whatever. Regardless, can YOU name a single reason why
transmitted data should not be encrypted in the year 2022, as it's trivial
to do so? Strange debate from a security expert.
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
We discussed this a year or two ago. The data on there is not sensitive and
is cryptographically verified by spamassassin before being used. Can you
name a single reason the data needs to be encrypted in transit? KAM
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 07:17 Henrik K <he...@hege.li> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:40:58PM +0200, Fossies Administrator wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There's really no reason these days for not using https.
> > >
> > > Only three mirrors work with it right now:
> > >
> > > sa-update.razx.cloud
> > > sa-update.pccc.com
> > > sa-update.mailfud.org
> > >
> > > Could maybe others prepare for it? sa-update seems to happily use
> https://
> > > mirrors starting from 3.4.0, so there shouldn't be any reason not to
> update
> > > these.
> > >
> > > Btw I just updated DNS to https too:
> > > mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "
> https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
> > >
> > > Apparently spamassassin.apache.org has had https-redirect for a long
> time,
> > > which broke the old checkSAupdateMirrors.sh script too.
> >
> > Unfortunately my server fossies.org currently uses a commercial
> certificate
> > only usable for the names "fossies.org" and "www.fossies.org" but not
> for
> > "sa-update.fossies.org" and some first general tests some months ago
> using
> > Let's Encrypt were not yet successful.
> >
> > Since I don't know when I have time for a new attempt (probably
> > summer/autumn after a big hardware migration) and the https request seems
> > understandable you may remove the server "sa-update.fossies.org"
> > if meaningful (relatively easy to get over, since it only has a weight
> of 1).
>
> I don't see it as a huge problem if we leave few mirrors as http:// - it
> enables ancient 3.3 clients to still get some updates.. dunno if that's
> good or bad. Maybe let's try to convert all "this year"?
>
> Btw about mirror weights, how were they decided? Basically weight=1 means
> there's a 1/50 chance to get a request, or 10 times less than the weight=10
> mirrors. Is everyone happy about the amount of traffic they receive? I'll
> probably bump mine up a bit since I have no traffic limits/costs..
>
> sa-update.verein-clean.net (1/4.8 chance)
> sa-update.spamassassin.org (1/4.8 chance)
> www.sa-update.pccc.com (1/9.6 chance)
> sa-update.ena.com (1/9.6 chance)
> sa-update.razx.cloud (1/9.6 chance)
> sa-update-asf.snb.it (1/9.6 chance)
> sa-update.dnswl.org (1/16.0 chance)
> sa-update.mailfud.org (1/16.0 chance)
> sa-update.space-pro.be (1/47.2 chance)
> sa-update.fossies.org (1/47.4 chance)
>
> Cheers,
> Henrik
>
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:40:58PM +0200, Fossies Administrator wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Henrik K wrote:
>
> >
> > There's really no reason these days for not using https.
> >
> > Only three mirrors work with it right now:
> >
> > sa-update.razx.cloud
> > sa-update.pccc.com
> > sa-update.mailfud.org
> >
> > Could maybe others prepare for it? sa-update seems to happily use https://
> > mirrors starting from 3.4.0, so there shouldn't be any reason not to update
> > these.
> >
> > Btw I just updated DNS to https too:
> > mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
> >
> > Apparently spamassassin.apache.org has had https-redirect for a long time,
> > which broke the old checkSAupdateMirrors.sh script too.
>
> Unfortunately my server fossies.org currently uses a commercial certificate
> only usable for the names "fossies.org" and "www.fossies.org" but not for
> "sa-update.fossies.org" and some first general tests some months ago using
> Let's Encrypt were not yet successful.
>
> Since I don't know when I have time for a new attempt (probably
> summer/autumn after a big hardware migration) and the https request seems
> understandable you may remove the server "sa-update.fossies.org"
> if meaningful (relatively easy to get over, since it only has a weight of 1).
I don't see it as a huge problem if we leave few mirrors as http:// - it
enables ancient 3.3 clients to still get some updates.. dunno if that's
good or bad. Maybe let's try to convert all "this year"?
Btw about mirror weights, how were they decided? Basically weight=1 means
there's a 1/50 chance to get a request, or 10 times less than the weight=10
mirrors. Is everyone happy about the amount of traffic they receive? I'll
probably bump mine up a bit since I have no traffic limits/costs..
sa-update.verein-clean.net (1/4.8 chance)
sa-update.spamassassin.org (1/4.8 chance)
www.sa-update.pccc.com (1/9.6 chance)
sa-update.ena.com (1/9.6 chance)
sa-update.razx.cloud (1/9.6 chance)
sa-update-asf.snb.it (1/9.6 chance)
sa-update.dnswl.org (1/16.0 chance)
sa-update.mailfud.org (1/16.0 chance)
sa-update.space-pro.be (1/47.2 chance)
sa-update.fossies.org (1/47.4 chance)
Cheers,
Henrik
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Fossies Administrator <Je...@fossies.org>.
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Henrik K wrote:
>
> There's really no reason these days for not using https.
>
> Only three mirrors work with it right now:
>
> sa-update.razx.cloud
> sa-update.pccc.com
> sa-update.mailfud.org
>
> Could maybe others prepare for it? sa-update seems to happily use https://
> mirrors starting from 3.4.0, so there shouldn't be any reason not to update
> these.
>
> Btw I just updated DNS to https too:
> mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
>
> Apparently spamassassin.apache.org has had https-redirect for a long time,
> which broke the old checkSAupdateMirrors.sh script too.
Unfortunately my server fossies.org currently uses a commercial
certificate only usable for the names "fossies.org" and "www.fossies.org"
but not for "sa-update.fossies.org" and some first general tests some
months ago using Let's Encrypt were not yet successful.
Since I don't know when I have time for a new attempt (probably
summer/autumn after a big hardware migration) and the https request seems
understandable you may remove the server "sa-update.fossies.org"
if meaningful (relatively easy to get over, since it only has a weight of 1).
Regards
Jens
--
FOSSIES - The Fresh Open Source Software archive
mainly for Internet, Engineering and Science
https://fossies.org/
Re: HTTPS for mirrors
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 05:34:57PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
>
> Btw I just updated DNS to https too:
> mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
Actually it's now:
mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "https://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY"
mirrors.updates.spamassassin.org. "http://sa-update.spamassassin.org/MIRRORED.BY"
Not sure why before it relied only on apache.org as a single point of
failure. Multiple records have been supported atleast from 3.3, so why not
have two project maintained servers there..