You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org> on 2008/12/01 16:03:06 UTC
Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, SM wrote:
> At 23:01 30-11-2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> So then, you're saying the behavior for ipv4 and ipv6 is somehow different?
>
> If you start spamd without specifying the IP addresses to listen on, spamd
> will listen on the 127.0.0.1 IP address only.
And on an ip6 enabled system, where will "spamc localhost" try to connect
to first? 127.0.0.1 or ::1?
> You should have the IO::Socket::INET6 and Socket6 Perl modules installed to
> have IPv6 support in spamd.
I have both modules present:
quark# perl -e 'use IO::Socket::INET6'
quark# perl -e 'use Socket6'
> You can start spamd as follows:
>
> spamd -i 2001:DB8:1:1::1
Yes, but there's no way to listen on *both* addresses -- however, it's
completely possible to listen on all ip4 addresses -- I'm just looking for
a switch that will say "all ip4 AND all ip6".
Also, would be useful if I could specify to listen on "::" or "[::]"
(neither worked when I tried it.) Again, consistent behavior between v4
and v6 is what I'm looking for.
> spamd only allows connections from 127:0.0.1. You can allow connections from
> other IP addresses with the -A parameter. You may have to patch
> Mail::SpamAssassin::NetSet. See
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4964
>
>> Additionally, even when I get this working, I am unable to specify ipv6
>> addresses to -A, either with or without square brackets.
>
> That part of the code is IPv4 specific.
Listening on v6 is pointless if I can't restrict. Is the correct answer
"open another bug?" Or from these commit messages, should I simply assume
the next 3.3 will have these (I see jm's note that the patches shouldn't
cleanly apply to 3.2.x.)?
As stated, I've fixed this (for now) by changing my "spamc" args to have
the v4 address.
-Dan
--
"Your future hasn't been written yet; no one's has. So make it a good
one!"
-"Doc" Emmet L. Browne, Back to the Future III
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: [sa-list] Spamd and ipv6
Posted by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org>.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Also, sorry about the subject headers. I think I've fixed my procmail
recipe.
-Dan
--
"I love you forever eternally."
-Connaian Expression
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6
Posted by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org>.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, SM wrote:
> At 18:23 02-12-2008, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
>> Are you using FreeBSD or NetBSD? If so, i understand you. Unfortunately, SA
>> developers do not care about IPv6 yet. So here SA program at first do
>> action with "127.0.0.1" than "::1", i guess ;;
>
> This was tested on a BSD system. SpamAssassin developers are sharing their
> code for free. If we need a specific feature or find a bug, we can always
> send a patch. If you read the URL I posted previously, you will see that the
> developers have been working on IPv6 support.
fwiw, I wasn't trying to sound abrasive, simply requesting that since the
expected behavior is that if the behavior is that the client should try
v6, then v4 -- that the server should have options to bind that way
(assume I am running a spamd server that serves both v4 and v6 users).
Right now I cannot multi-stack bind (is that being worked on?) or bind to
multiple addresses (is that also being worked on?).
Alternatively, there should be an flag in the client to control whether
it connects on v4 or v6, and the default should be consistent with how the
server functions by default. If v6 support in the server isn't done yet,
then v4 should be the default.
Of course, opening a bug on this won't help since it's slated for fixing
and ostensibly already have bugs open.
I suggested there might also be docbugs, but since this support is coming
in the next release, amending the docs in the current version wouldn't
help.
I've found bug reports to be a *terrible* method of communication unless
someone on a list who knows the product better than I says "yeah, that's a
bug, open one".
-Dan
--
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 18:23 02-12-2008, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
>Are you using FreeBSD or NetBSD? If so, i understand you.
>Unfortunately, SA developers do not care about IPv6 yet. So here SA
>program at first do action with "127.0.0.1" than "::1", i guess ;;
This was tested on a BSD system. SpamAssassin developers are sharing
their code for free. If we need a specific feature or find a bug,
we can always send a patch. If you read the URL I posted previously,
you will see that the developers have been working on IPv6 support.
Regards,
-sm
Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6
Posted by Byung-Hee HWANG <bh...@izb.knu.ac.kr>.
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, SM wrote:
>
>> At 23:01 30-11-2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>> So then, you're saying the behavior for ipv4 and ipv6 is somehow
>>> different?
>>
>> If you start spamd without specifying the IP addresses to listen on,
>> spamd will listen on the 127.0.0.1 IP address only.
>
> And on an ip6 enabled system, where will "spamc localhost" try to
> connect to first? 127.0.0.1 or ::1?
Are you using FreeBSD or NetBSD? If so, i understand you. Unfortunately,
SA developers do not care about IPv6 yet. So here SA program at first do
action with "127.0.0.1" than "::1", i guess ;;
[...]
byunghee
Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 07:03 01-12-2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>And on an ip6 enabled system, where will "spamc localhost" try to
>connect to first? 127.0.0.1 or ::1?
By default, spamc connects to 127.0.0.1. On a properly configured
network, it will try ::1, then 127.0.0.1.
>Yes, but there's no way to listen on *both* addresses -- however,
>it's completely possible to listen on all ip4 addresses -- I'm just
>looking for a switch that will say "all ip4 AND all ip6".
There isn't a switch for all IPv4 and all IPv6 addresses.
>Also, would be useful if I could specify to listen on "::" or "[::]"
>(neither worked when I tried it.) Again, consistent behavior
>between v4 and v6 is what I'm looking for.
If you specify the listen on as "::", spamd will listen on all IPv6 addresses.
>Listening on v6 is pointless if I can't restrict. Is the correct
>answer "open another bug?" Or from these commit messages, should I
>simply assume the next 3.3 will have these (I see jm's note that the
>patches shouldn't cleanly apply to 3.2.x.)?
It's actually restricted. If you don't specify an IP address with
-A, spamd will disconnect you. You won't be able to specify IPv6
addresses after the -A without the patch. You can either wait for
3.3 to be released or adapt that patch for your version of SpamAssassin.
Regards,
-sm