On 7-Oct-2009, at 14:48, Wietse Venema wrote:
This is no longer about Postfix. Take it off-list, please.
Sorry, replied before reading this.
--
"What's a Velvet Underground?" "You wouldn't like it." "Oh,
Be-bop."
On 7-Oct-2009, at 13:40, Dave Täht wrote:
I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too.
Nah, I WANT IPv6 to work, but the fact of the matter is, it's not. The
ISPs have no interest in supporting it, and until it is simple for
users to get static IPv6 addresses and rDNS on tho
Stan Hoeppner:
> Dave T?ht put forth on 10/7/2009 2:40 PM:
>
> > I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too.
>
> That's a bit like comparing a German Shepherd and a Poodle to a Pig and
> a Giraffe. IPv4/IPv6 share the same architecture (same species) and
> base protocol, but use
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Dave T?ht put forth on 10/7/2009 2:40 PM:
>>
>> > I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too.
>>
>> That's a bit like comparing a German Shepherd and a Poodle to a Pig and
>> a Giraffe. IPv4/IPv6 share the same arc
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> Dave Täht put forth on 10/7/2009 2:40 PM:
>
>> I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too.
>
> That's a bit like comparing a German Shepherd and a Poodle to a Pig and
> a Giraffe. IPv4/IPv6 share the same architecture (same species) and
> base protocol, bu
Dave Täht put forth on 10/7/2009 2:40 PM:
> I imagine you all were big fans of NETBUI and IPX/SPX too.
That's a bit like comparing a German Shepherd and a Poodle to a Pig and
a Giraffe. IPv4/IPv6 share the same architecture (same species) and
base protocol, but use different addressing. IPv6 a
LuKreme wrote:
On 6-Oct-2009, at 09:37, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Your time in this regard
would be much better spent building a new supercharged 440 Hemi to drop
into a '70 Barracuda that you've redone from the frame rails up. ;)
That's a much more worthy use of your time.
Yeah, I have to agree, a
On 6-Oct-2009, at 09:37, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Your time in this regard
would be much better spent building a new supercharged 440 Hemi to
drop
into a '70 Barracuda that you've redone from the frame rails up. ;)
That's a much more worthy use of your time.
Yeah, I have to agree, and I didn't u
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave T?ht:
>> d...@teklibre.org (Dave T?ht) writes:
>>
>> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>>
>> >> Dave Taht:
>> >
>> > Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
>> > *sending* mail on different protoco
Dave T?ht:
> d...@teklibre.org (Dave T?ht) writes:
>
> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>
> >> Dave Taht:
> >
> > Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
> > *sending* mail on different protocols?
> >
> > The simplest version would implement somethi
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> Dave Täht put forth on 10/6/2009 10:02 AM:
>> d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
>>
>> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>>
Dave Taht:
>>> Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
>>> *sending* mail on different proto
Dave Täht put forth on 10/6/2009 10:02 AM:
> d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
>
> One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>
>>> Dave Taht:
>> Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
>> *sending* mail on different protocols?
>>
>> The simplest version
d...@teklibre.org (Dave Täht) writes:
One unanswered question from this series of emails:
>> Dave Taht:
>
> Would you take a patch that would let a crazed administrator disable
> *sending* mail on different protocols?
>
> The simplest version would implement something like:
>
> smtp_try_sendproto
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave T?ht:
>> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>>
>> > Dave Taht:
>> >> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
>> >>
>> >> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
>> >> MX 10 mytinyarmb
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave T?ht:
>> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>>
>> > Dave Taht:
>> >> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
>> >>
>> >> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
>> >> MX 10 mytinyarmb
Wietse Venema:
> > Problem 2) My smarthost is only smart enough to try sending to one other
> > relay (I think).
>
> If the machine sends mail to a less preferred MX host than itself,
> then it is badly borked. To pull that off with Postfix you would
> have to turn off DNS or override the routing
Dave T?ht:
> wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
>
> > Dave Taht:
> >> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
> >>
> >> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
> >> MX 10 mytinyarmbox.example.org # if not, try my arm box
> >> MX 20 mysm
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) writes:
> Dave Taht:
>> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
>>
>> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
>> MX 10 mytinyarmbox.example.org # if not, try my arm box
>> MX 20 mysmarthost.example.org # other
Dave T?ht:
> So what I think I want to do is setup fallback relaying as follows:
>
> MX 5 mylaptop.example.org # if my laptop's up send mail there
> MX 10 mytinyarmbox.example.org # if not, try my arm box
> MX 20 mysmarthost.example.org # otherwise, default to my well connected host
...
> Problem
A couple weeks back I started running most of the mail servers I am
responsible for over ipv6. (I posted a few notes to this list on that)
I'm trying to wrap my head around a new problem - trying to have two postfix
relays and a smart host co-exist where one of the relays is a tiny power
sipping
20 matches
Mail list logo
