Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > So I would assume from that setting inet_interfaces to empty has the
> > same effect as setting it to all (it will listen on all interfaces)?
>
> No, it does not. Rather, it leaves zero listener addresses enabled,
> which only works if all "inet" services a
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 02:34:53PM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> That makes sense, and is exactly what I would expect, but it still needs
> to be documented.
>
> But it does raise another question in my mind. Many places in the
> documentation state that the "Local" domain c
That's a non-issue. With that, Postfix will only listen on IPv4 as
specified, when the "inet" endpoint only specifies the port.
That makes sense, and is exactly what I would expect, but it still needs
to be documented.
But it does raise another question in my mind. Many places in the
docu
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 01:57:19PM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > This is rarely what you want. I'd be inclined to require that the
> > "inet_interfaces" parameter be non-empty (though it could still be
> > effectively empty as a list by setting it to be a mixture of spaces a
This is rarely what you want. I'd be inclined to require that the
"inet_interfaces" parameter be non-empty (though it could still be
effectively empty as a list by setting it to be a mixture of spaces and
at least one comma).
You need to be careful what "empty" means. If inet_interfaces has o
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 02:08:29PM +1200, Peter via Postfix-users wrote:
> On 5/05/23 11:33, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> > An empty inet_interfaces means that there is no constraint for the
> > SMTP client source IP address. I am adding some text for that.
>
> I think the question is
On 5/05/23 11:33, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
An empty inet_interfaces means that there is no constraint for the
SMTP client source IP address. I am adding some text for that.
I think the question is, what effect does it have on the server
listening address. This is from inet_liste
Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users:
> It was more a rhetorical question in the context of documentation
> improvement. Specifically, the documentation doesn't actually say what
> [blank] means. I think something like the following would be an
> improvement..
>
> Specify "all" to receive mail on a
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 07:01:03AM +1000, Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users
wrote:
> Specify "all" to receive mail on all network interfaces (default),
> "loopback-only" to receive mail on loopback network interfaces only
> (Postfix version 2.2 and later) or leave blank to disable the reception
It was more a rhetorical question in the context of documentation
improvement. Specifically, the documentation doesn't actually say what
[blank] means. I think something like the following would be an
improvement..
Specify "all" to receive mail on all network interfaces (default),
"loopback-o
Sean Gallagher via Postfix-users:
> how is "inet_interfaces = all" different to "inet_interfaces = " (i.e.
> blank)?
One says that Postfix will provide network service on all IP
addresses, the other does not, and all this is subject to
overrides in master.cf.
Neither constrains the SMTP client s
I'm wondering if there should be "all-ipv4" and "all-ipv6" values to
complement the "all" value and allow independent configuration of IPv4
and IPv6 without having to specify literal IP addresses. This would make
"all" equivalent to "all-ipv4, all-ipv6". Just a thought bubble...
On 4/05/2023 6
On 5/3/23 15:23, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
Though perhaps this level of attention to phrasing is only applicable in
Talmud scholarship...
Hey, six thousand years of Talmudic scholarship can't all be wrong! :D
--
Phil Stracchino
Babylon Communications
ph...@caerllewys.net
On 4/05/23 08:31, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users:
Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address?
From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces
setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can
that be c
On 4/05/23 08:31, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
Peter via Postfix-users:
Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address?
From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces
setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can
that be c
how is "inet_interfaces = all" different to "inet_interfaces = " (i.e.
blank)?
By supplying an IP4 address and not an IPv6 address, you are effectively
leaving the IPv6 setting blank. What happens with a blank field needs to
be specified.
how is "inet_interfaces = all" different to "inet_int
Peter via Postfix-users:
> Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address?
> From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces
> setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can
> that be clarified (one way or the other)?
In the mean time
Is this behavior of inet_interfaces overridden by smtp_bind_address?
From the way it's worded it looks to me like the inet_interfaces
setting overrides smtp_bind_address but this isn't clear to me. Can
that be clarified (one way or the other)?
Peter
On 4/05/23 04:48, Wietse Venema via Post
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 12:48:28PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> I updated the inet_interfaces documentation anmd clarified its
> relationship with smtp_bind*_address and system-chosen source IP
> addresses.
>
> Wietse
>
>When smtp_bind_address and/or smtp_bind_addres
19 matches
Mail list logo
