Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

AIUI, yes, since the absolute 1-arg on|off boolean syntax would be preserved. Those would be disallowed for other patterns (e.g. any IP-looking thing subsumes and precludes using the first pattern.) 'On' devolves to 0.0.0.0/32 (any match). Just pointing out I'm still not convinced it's entirely

Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

Is expansion of the syntax something that could be folded in for 2.4.27? > On Jun 8, 2017, at 2:51 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > [Again, using all the words] > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >> Hi, all; >> With the

Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

[Again, using all the words] On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > With the proposal to T set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to the > PROXY protocol proposal in STATUS. Just hoping for a quick review. I know it > appears to be a large

Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

FYI the one change I've been considering is to extend the On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > With the proposal to T set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to the > PROXY protocol proposal in STATUS. Just hoping for a quick review. I know

An ask for eyes on proposal

Hi, all; With the proposal to T set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to the PROXY protocol proposal in STATUS. Just hoping for a quick review. I know it appears to be a large change, but as I worked through the feedback, ten of the commits effectively got coded out. What we are left

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

Perfect... I propose a T on Monday... comments? > On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:23 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > Backported. Will also release v1.10.6 on github shortly. > >> Am 06.06.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Stefan Eissing : >> >>> >>> Am