Hello Nigel,
On 12.05.2014 16:11, Nigel Kukard wrote: > This is actually a very good point. We do need different CIDR's for both. > > Does anyone else have anything to add, or ideas on how you want it > implemented? This is a very good idea and absolutely necessary. Currently this can be done by using two greylisting policies. One with source "0.0.0.0/0" matching only IPv4 adresses and one with source "::/0" to match only IPv6 addresses. I am referring to now this worked on git commit 8b1b6fae from August 2011. I believe though that with a more current version the way IPv6 addresses are matched has changed a little. Please have a look at my post "[policyd-users] Why not release a 2.1?", http://lists.policyd.org/pipermail/users_lists.policyd.org/2011-October/003556.html, from 2011 again. Nigel you created a nice piece of policy software. But please consider releasing 2.1, even as something clearly marked "beta" or "rc". I believe I understand that you only want to release something you are truly happy with. But postponing the release of anything 2.1.x for such a long time will not help in getting there. a) More and more people, me included, are using IPv6 and therefore use shapshots or something off git. This makes it impossible for you to find and debug a common current version. I'd rather see something beta be released and that very version is then tested by many people to get it solid and stable. b) Linux Distros (Debian i.e.) will otherwise not include 2.1 ever and this means again less users using a current state of policydv2. Again, just my worthless 2 cents. But I very much like your software and would love to see it live on, long and prosper. Christian _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.policyd.org/mailman/listinfo/users_lists.policyd.org
