Amazing. Thank you!
On 1/2/20 1:41 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Maybe you can try to implement v2 support ? Parsing v2 when v1 is already
supported is quite easy, especially at the same level of support (i.e. no
TLV field support for TLS or whatever). You can have a look at
conn_re
> > > Maybe you can try to implement v2 support ? Parsing v2 when v1 is already
> > > supported is quite easy, especially at the same level of support (i.e. no
> > > TLV field support for TLS or whatever). You can have a look at
> > > conn_recv_proxy() in haproxy:src/connection.c which supports the
Wietse Venema:
> Willy Tarreau:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tam?s G?rczei wrote:
> > > Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
> > > experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
> > > whether you have considered implementing v2 supp
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:38:06AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I have a question about the v2 protocol spec.
>
> - \x0 : LOCAL : the connection was established on purpose by the
> proxy without being relayed. The connection endpoints are the
> sender and the receiver. Such connections
I have a question about the v2 protocol spec.
- \x0 : LOCAL : the connection was established on purpose by the proxy
without being relayed. The connection endpoints are the sender and the
receiver. Such connections exist when the proxy sends health-checks to the
server. The receiver
Many thanks in advance for all your efforts in this regard, Wietse!
On 12/31/19 5:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Willy Tarreau:
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tam?s G?rczei wrote:
>>> Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
>>> experiments,That said, now knowing
Willy Tarreau:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tam?s G?rczei wrote:
> > Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
> > experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
> > whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to
> > mig
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:34:14AM +0100, Tamás Gérczei wrote:
> Thanks Willy, I appreciate the clue and your helpful intention -
> unfortunately this isn't something I can personally do owing to lack of
> knowledge. I don't know whether the v1 implementation had been a
> community patch or somethi
Thanks Willy, I appreciate the clue and your helpful intention -
unfortunately this isn't something I can personally do owing to lack of
knowledge. I don't know whether the v1 implementation had been a
community patch or something Wietse or Viktor have done.
On 12/31/19 8:35 AM, Willy Tarreau wrot
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 08:21:05AM +0100, Tamás Gérczei wrote:
> Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
> experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
> whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to
> migrate to a setup where I'm
Thanks Wietse, this is what I thought and found out during my
experiments,That said, now knowing that only v1 is supported, may I ask
whether you have considered implementing v2 support? I'm about to
migrate to a setup where I'm behind a load balancer that only speaks v2.
Yours,
Tamás
On 12/30/19
Tam?s G?rczei:
> Hello List,
>
> I'd like to ask if PROXY protocol v2 is supported by Postfix?
It's not mentioned in documentation, therefore it is not supported.
Ditto for memcached v2 protocol.
Wietse
Brendan Kearney:
> i have postscreen and smtpd running on the same box as submission, and
Running postscreen for the submission service is not recommended.
It should be used for MTA-to-MTA service only. The documentation
even says so, threfore don't do it.
> it seems i am missing something when
13 matches
Mail list logo
