> My iptables rule which blocks IP addresses is at the highest precedence, and
> in fact, it is my *only* iptables rule.
To verify there aren't any rules being applied that you might not be aware of,
try:
iptables -n -L
I'm sorry, but I am not seeing the behavior that you describe.
My iptables rule which blocks IP addresses is at the highest precedence, and
in fact, it is my *only* iptables rule. I repeatedly and regularly see that
this
rule does not terminate nor block existing connections. It only blocks
*futur
On Thu, 26 May 2022, Hippo Man wrote:
[...]
I also read your other message where you referred to a stackexchange
conversation about killing existing connections. That conversation confirms
what I have observed in my own environment: that iptables offers no way to
terminate an already establi
Follow-up:
I have tested dovecot's auth-policy mechanism, and I got it to work.
However, I see now that even this auth-policy mechanism doesn't give dovecot
any way to *kill* an existing connection. It can allow dovecot to reject
login
attempts, and it can cause external activities to be performe
On 2022-05-24, Niklas Meyer wrote:
> since we´ve tested around with the new dovecot release in the mailcow
> project we´ve came across a curious and new error with Dovecot:
>
> /auth: Panic: file userdb-blocking.c: line 124
> (userdb_blocking_iter_next): assertion failed: (ctx->conn != NULL)/
T
