-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/18/11 13:24, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > But that is not what you have DONE.
Yes, because evidently the two are mutually exclusive. A relayhost cannot be defined for only IPv4 traffic nor can it be configured to not effect IPv6 capable traffic. Essentially, as I understand Dr. Venema, the relayhost global configuration directive applies both to IPv4/IPv6 traffic with no mechanism to segregate them. This circles back to my acknowledgement from Dr. Venema and suggestion for inclusion of such a feature, if deemed community valuable, for future branches. I'm certainly open for any suggestions for accommodating my goal of applying an IPv4 relayhost to non-IPv6 capable traffic if there is such a way to accomplish this goal with the existing configuration directives. - -- - -evilghost -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN1BAtAAoJENgimYXu6xOHh9oQAIPr6jWz0TpQZcQWDVOk0pJ5 9nlVEHQ/0QiGTdBwXVYHAwiS0u7XB+xzra5XB5A5dTlVOUDPmtyeZYg1XjTvEb+i gSiTwtQ1Lv3pmsuUaNg4Ri8X+YwlobEfBi65UbZEmiZWibkIemo2EkZETpch1/8S qQnGnw1uvwCezJN8kVbuT8H75Cq/lfqa4jHAb3paeB8C9c+XuazK4d3CBV4SIPJf AlgJBTLyLE2GBvRNdOtF7ibXyUvgqKcLINvrT29IPmMRExicuSDsbncRzYTWBbQM OUTU2dt5erbVs2egLAN7gwj00+QYUVeNrzHjZss+p0y4HREXT9h6xdmGRVMiNNZO aFe1oqYG4xpudlBmOjPiFrr0zZiIaCgNO3qnFQ0lEH8t4Wppz5PIvc7W1B39ApPp 3n+jovkBaEfmX2BShXHL4tud6KLxHM7hQ8O7spC6UZdQGTufSHEYOLIl60tVZkDT Sc/u53FPPgYELlf8DuvPprDH8XXDEEv+AEziwPaQHYQSI5AvrMtsJspie/a50LuB OlbPVUgQ0ha7sYEf5gpJiarX3ExkMW+YCzIPNyjAoYd5ycVtVb3phCaHtVk8m33E xK0QzBYeejwgR1sOsVS09X2shnOpHzc8GFc+bCTRxJA6E2mcyewEH1/c+WEQRrdJ Zk2s47RafxRNd2auRxMW =quqc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
