On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:18:39PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> besides junk food, are you ok?
Yes, it's just that my mood varies a lot from day to day :-/ We still
have *at least* 4 weeks so stand that. It's the first time they dare
announcing a possible start of the end. We'll see.
These
вс, 12 апр. 2020 г. в 21:22, Willy Tarreau :
> Hello Hativ,
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:49:02AM +0200, Hativ wrote:
> > Hello Willy,
> > > Hativ, if I send you a patch to test next week, is it possible to
> > > give
> > > it a try on your side ? I'm interested in knowing if a clean "LOCAL"
> >
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:32:40PM +0200, Hativ wrote:
> Thanks for the patch, tested it, worked.
Great, thanks! So I think we'll have to merge this one. What I think
would be the best approach would be to get backport it to all branches
where the original patch that revealed the bug was
Am Sonntag, den 12.04.2020, 18:19 +0200 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Hello Hativ,
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:49:02AM +0200, Hativ wrote:
> > Hello Willy,
> > > Hativ, if I send you a patch to test next week, is it possible
> > > togiveit a try on your side ? I'm interested in knowing if a
> > >
still to come ;)
Regards,
Stefan
-Original Message-
From: Willy Tarreau
Sent: Sunday, 12 April 2020 18:19
To: Hativ
Cc: Tim Düsterhus ; haproxy@formilux.org
Subject: Re: TLV problem after updating to 2.1.14
Hello Hativ,
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:49:02AM +0200, Hativ wrote:
> Hello Wi
Hello Hativ,
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 09:49:02AM +0200, Hativ wrote:
> Hello Willy,
> > Hativ, if I send you a patch to test next week, is it possible to
> > give
> > it a try on your side ? I'm interested in knowing if a clean "LOCAL"
> > connection works fine with Dovecot. If so then in parallel
Hello Willy,
> Hativ, if I send you a patch to test next week, is it possible to
> give
> it a try on your side ? I'm interested in knowing if a clean "LOCAL"
> connection works fine with Dovecot. If so then in parallel we can
> file
> a report on Dovecot to make their parser more robust but at
Hello Willy,
> Hativ, if I send you a patch to test next week, is it possible to
> give
> it a try on your side ? I'm interested in knowing if a clean "LOCAL"
> connection works fine with Dovecot. If so then in parallel we can
> file
> a report on Dovecot to make their parser more robust but at
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> > Do you think we ought to refrain from sending any address at all ?
> > I preferred to avoid possibly visible changes and apparently it didn't
> > go that well :-/
> >
>
> Based on a strict reading of the proxy protocol definition
Willy,
Am 04.04.20 um 13:29 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
>> Am 04.04.20 um 12:41 schrieb Tim Düsterhus:
>>> The Dovecot source code is here:
>>> https://github.com/dovecot/core/blob/de9968d623e331a18b43dfe8a00421f72f7f7962/src/lib-master/master-service-haproxy.c#L354
>>>
>>> A quick glance at the
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:52:07PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hativ,
> Willy,
>
> Am 04.04.20 um 12:41 schrieb Tim Düsterhus:
> > The Dovecot source code is here:
> > https://github.com/dovecot/core/blob/de9968d623e331a18b43dfe8a00421f72f7f7962/src/lib-master/master-service-haproxy.c#L354
> >
Hativ,
Willy,
Am 04.04.20 um 12:41 schrieb Tim Düsterhus:
> The Dovecot source code is here:
> https://github.com/dovecot/core/blob/de9968d623e331a18b43dfe8a00421f72f7f7962/src/lib-master/master-service-haproxy.c#L354
>
> A quick glance at the Dovecot code looks like Dovecot parses the proxy
>
Hativ,
Am 04.04.20 um 08:22 schrieb Hativ:
> what I've found in the meantime: Dovecot's error messages even appear
> permanently, regardless of the TCP check.
>
> Reverting that commit (7f26391bc51ad56c31480d03f56e1db604f1c617) back solves
> the issue. No more error message in Dovecot and the
Hello Tim,
what I've found in the meantime: Dovecot's error messages even appear
permanently, regardless of the TCP check.
Reverting that commit (7f26391bc51ad56c31480d03f56e1db604f1c617) back solves
the issue. No more error message in Dovecot and the Layer 7 check works again.
What's the
Hativ,
Am 03.04.20 um 00:38 schrieb Hativ:
> Any ideas what's wrong?
>
I would assume that this patch changed the behavior there:
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/commit/7f26391bc51ad56c31480d03f56e1db604f1c617
Can you try reverting that to check whether it is the cause?
Best regards
Tim
15 matches
Mail list logo