Hi Victor,

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest it is a missing feature--it does look like a bug 
to me.  The documented form doesn't work.

BTW, the errors in the logs look like this:

Feb 23 10:32:46 vm-rhes5-01 postfix/smtp[1062]: fatal: valid hostname or 
network address required in server description: [IPv6:fe80::250:56ff:fe82:54b5]
Feb 23 10:32:47 vm-rhes5-01 postfix/qmgr[544]: warning: private/smtp socket: 
malformed response
Feb 23 10:32:47 vm-rhes5-01 postfix/qmgr[544]: warning: transport smtp failure 
-- see a previous warning/fatal/panic logfile record for the problem description
Feb 23 10:32:47 vm-rhes5-01 postfix/master[542]: warning: process 
/opt/pmx/postfix/libexec/smtp pid 1062 exit status 1
Feb 23 10:32:47 vm-rhes5-01 postfix/master[542]: warning: 
/opt/pmx/postfix/libexec/smtp: bad command startup -- throttling

Google reveals other people have run into the issue, but perhaps no one 
bothered to patch it as the problem can be worked around by adding a DNS entry.

Sarathy


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: IPv6 address literal issue in 'smtp'

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:30:50PM -0800, Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:

> I've run into an issue with the IPv6 support in postfix when it is
> set up to deliver to a literal IPv6 address in the transport table.
> It looks like 'smtpd' will only accept IPv6 address literals in RFC
> 2821 format while 'smtp' will only accept IPv6 address literals in
> the unadorned form (without the ipv6: prefix).

The documented smtp(8) nexthop syntax is:

    http://www.postfix.org/smtp.8.html

    SMTP DESTINATION SYNTAX
        SMTP destinations have the following form:

        ...

        [address]:port
              Connect  to  the host at the specified address, and
              connect to the specified port (default:  smtp).  An
              IPv6 address must be formatted as [ipv6:address].

If this is not the case, perhaps you are reporting a bug, rather
than a missing feature?

-- 
        Viktor.

Reply via email to