On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 07:05:59 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
...
[postfix dies with a Protocol not supported when built in a jail
without an IPv6 address]
...
I've just bumped into this exact situation with mail/postfix28 and
suspect that earlier postfix ports have the same issue. The above
Resurrecting an old thread because I've just run into this problem...
[postfix dies with a Protocol not supported when built in a jail
without an IPv6 address]
On 2011-Nov-17 15:41:12 -0500, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
A more proactive workaround would be to treat protocol not
Peter Jeremy:
I've just bumped into this exact situation with mail/postfix28 and
suspect that earlier postfix ports have the same issue. The above fix
works on postfix28 and I would request that it be added to that port's
patch list. Since this is a workaround for a FreeBSD-specific issue,
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:36:20 -0500
Sahil Tandon articulated:
This port has been updated to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 2019.
Thanks Sahil. :)
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
Sahil Tandon píše v so 19. 11. 2011 v 15:48 -0500:
Wietse has made the change upstream and I plan to commit that in a
little bit. Just running it through my tinderbox if folks don't mind
the wait (a few hours).
Not at all, and thanks both!
--
--
Pav Lucistnik p...@oook.cz
Wietse Venema píše v čt 17. 11. 2011 v 15:41 -0500:
Pav Lucistnik:
Wietse Venema p??e v ?t 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
Actually, a Postfix built-in default setting changed on 20110918.
It now enables IPv6 unless this is turned off in a configuration
file. I can fix that at compile
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 19:42:02 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Wietse Venema píše v čt 17. 11. 2011 v 15:41 -0500:
Pav Lucistnik:
Wietse Venema p??e v ?t 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
Actually, a Postfix built-in default setting changed on 20110918.
It now enables IPv6 unless this is
This port has been updated to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 2019.
--
Sahil Tandon
pgpVTSiYHETTH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:48:49 -0800
per...@pluto.rain.com articulated:
Pav Lucistnik p...@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
On 18/11/2011 11:48, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Pav Lucistnikp...@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
Doug Barton:
On 11/16/2011 05:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
I tend to believe that network-less build environments are not
representative for the environment where an Internet MTA would run,
but hey, what do I know.
I think you're right that having a network makes the MTA more useful. :)
Jase Thew:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
On 16/11/2011 23:30, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:16:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
[SNIP]
It would be immensely helpful if run-time details could be made
available including line of source code, and any system
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:54:02 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema articulated:
Sloppy programmers should never be rewarded.
I couldn't agree more fully. Unfortunately, they all too often are.
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To
Wietse Venema:
Jase Thew:
It can occur when IPv6 is enabled, but you don't have any IPv6 addresses
configured on any interfaces. (Yes, having an IPv6 enabled interface
with no addresses assigned is non-RFC3513 compliant, but it can and does
occur).
...
Thanks, this is very helpful.
Wietse Venema píše v čt 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
Wietse Venema:
Jase Thew:
It can occur when IPv6 is enabled, but you don't have any IPv6 addresses
configured on any interfaces. (Yes, having an IPv6 enabled interface
with no addresses assigned is non-RFC3513 compliant, but it can
Pav Lucistnik p...@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
On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
It is a
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:28:03AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Is it a clever idea to hardcode local interfaces on build machine into a
package that will then be redistributed to other machines?
Am I misunderstanding something, or is this a local configuration script
that customizes the
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:28:03 +0100
Pav Lucistnik articulated:
On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
Hi!
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[quote
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2011-11/0385.html]
I have heard about bizarre errors on FreeBSD (jail) systems where
the user-land
Kurt Jaeger:
Hi!
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[quote
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2011-11/0385.html]
I have heard about bizarre errors on FreeBSD (jail) systems where
On 2011-11-16 10:28, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently different to break the
Hi!
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[...]
Postfix does none of that.
The fbsd postfix-current port during the post-install script does
something which fails on a jail-based build-cluster where the
On 2011/11/16 14:18, olli hauer wrote:
On 2011-11-16 10:28, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or
Kurt Jaeger:
Hi!
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[...]
Postfix does none of that.
The fbsd postfix-current port during the post-install script does
something which fails on a jail-based
On 16 Nov 2011 16:00, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Kurt Jaeger:
Hi!
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value
(it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[...]
Postfix does none of that.
The fbsd postfix-current port during
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 Nov 2011 16:00, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Kurt Jaeger:
Hi!
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value
(it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[...]
Postfix does
Wietse:
Would it be possible to give the jail a loopback interface?
I don't mind if FreeBSD improves its build environment such that
it breaks the build after 12 years. If adding a loopback interface
fixes this, then we can all move on to more interesting things.
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:24
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:16:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse:
Would it be possible to give the jail a loopback interface?
I don't mind if FreeBSD improves its build environment such that
it breaks the build after 12 years. If adding a loopback interface
fixes this, then we can
On 16/11/2011 23:30, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:16:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
[SNIP]
It would be immensely helpful if run-time details could be made
available including line of source code, and any system configuration
details that are necessary to reproduce the
On 11/16/2011 05:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
I tend to believe that network-less build environments are not
representative for the environment where an Internet MTA would run,
but hey, what do I know.
I think you're right that having a network makes the MTA more useful. :)
However given the
It was marked broken on a particular architecture, hence the genesis of this
thread. I appreciate that diagnosis is difficult; perhaps Olli's suggestion is
helpful in isolating the issue. I do not know how else to troubleshoot since
these pointyhat errors are not - AFAIK - reproducible by
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:31:49 -0500
Sahil Tandon articulated:
It was marked broken on a particular architecture, hence the genesis
of this thread. I appreciate that diagnosis is difficult; perhaps
Olli's suggestion is helpful in isolating the issue. I do not know
how else to troubleshoot
On 15/11/2011 14:31, Sahil Tandon wrote:
It was marked broken on a particular architecture, hence the genesis of this
thread. I appreciate that diagnosis is difficult; perhaps Olli's suggestion is
helpful in isolating the issue. I do not know how else to troubleshoot since
these pointyhat
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
It is a purposefully no-networking sandbox jail. What networking
activity postconf wants to run?
--
--
Pav
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
It is a purposefully no-networking
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
It is a purposefully no-networking sandbox
[ pav@ and those who tested mail/postifx-current on amd64 added to Cc: ]
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 08:37:13 -0500, Jerry wrote:
The postfix-current port is still marked as broken:
.if ${ARCH} == amd64
BROKEN= fails during installation
.endif
Since all previous releases of Postfix
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:24:30PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
[ pav@ and those who tested mail/postifx-current on amd64 added to Cc: ]
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 08:37:13 -0500, Jerry wrote:
The postfix-current port is still marked as broken:
.if ${ARCH} == amd64
BROKEN= fails
39 matches
Mail list logo
