Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:48:49 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: wietse@porcupine.org, sahil+freebsd-ports@tandon.net, garga@freebsd.org, freebsd@beardz.net, lists@opsec.eu, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: "postfix-current" broken on amd64 platform Message-ID: <4ec64621.5VnWOe6lq5n/i0BQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <1321560805.6735.15.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <3SkrRf563xzk2RT@spike.porcupine.org> <1321560805.6735.15.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> wrote: > The build jails are configured to have only IPv4 address on lo0, > but the host have both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on its lo0. Even disregarding RFC3513, is an IPv6-enabled kernel without an IPv6 address on lo0 a realistic configuration for a "real" FreeBSD system? If not, I'd think it worthwhile to make pointyhat more realistic. (Either way, it seems unobjectionable to improve the robustness of postfix, making it more liberal in what it accepts.) > Changing the jail configuration is possible but if a reasonable > workaround can be made in postfix-current port I'd prefer not to > touch pointyhat configuration (unexpected consequences and all > that...) It may be a bit late in the 9.0 release cycle to be messing with the pointyhat configuration, but an adjustment might be considered after 9.0-RELEASE is done.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ec64621.5VnWOe6lq5n/i0BQ%perryh>