On Sunday 30 November 2014 at 08:05:46 +1030, Ron wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:32:05PM +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > > But I don't think that the default of :69 is any worse than 0.0.0.0:69 > > would be though - unless you have a deep distrust of anyone on IPv6. :) > > Right, I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong for someone to configure it > like this explicitly if they are sure it's ok for their use case, and the > INADDR_ANY is almost surely just because this predates support for IPv6 > and hadn't been looked at again since. And also surely, at least in part, > because it also predates people using this on laptops in potentially > hostile environments where network interfaces it might bind to can come > and go with the wind ... > > Which just has me wondering more generally if either of these is still an > appropriate *default*, and if not what might be more appropriate.
I think you're probably right. It would make sense to require an explicit action during configuration to force a decision on which interfaces which should be bound to (as exim4-config does.) > Another I don't have the answer to right now off the top of my head is, > will this even listen on interfaces that come up after the daemon is > started without us explicitly using IP_FREEBIND? Having it not fail at > startup isn't a lot of help if it still won't actually communicate on > those interfaces. That's easy enough to test, but I'm not remembering > the answer to this being a definite "yes it will" ... I'm reasonably sure that binding to INADDR_ANY will accept connections on any interface that appears in the future too. Thanks. Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
