Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6

2008-12-05 Thread Dan Mahoney, System Admin

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

2008-12-03 Thread SM

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

2008-12-02 Thread Byung-Hee HWANG

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: Spamd and ipv6

2008-12-01 Thread SM

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.


You should have the IO::Socket::INET6 and Socket6 Perl modules 
installed to have IPv6 support in spamd.  You can start spamd as follows:


spamd -i 2001:DB8:1:1::1

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.

Regards,
-sm 



Re: [sa-list] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6

2008-12-01 Thread Dan Mahoney, System Admin

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] Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6

2008-12-01 Thread SM

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 



Re: Spamd and ipv6

2008-11-30 Thread SM

At 21:45 30-11-2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Since getting my hosts natively speaking ipv6, I've been seeing a 
lot of initial timeouts connecting to spamc, because I believe it's 
apparently trying ipv6 first.


spamc: connect to spamd on 2001:470:1f07:a7f::1 failed, retrying (#1 
of 3): Connection refused


[snip]

However, I cannot get the -A systax for spamd to accept connections 
from a given address, nor does it appear to be listening on said address:


quark# netstat -na | grep LIST | grep 783
tcp4   0  0  *.783  *.*LISTEN


Use the -i parameter to specify the IPv6 address.  The -A parameter 
to specify the host which can connect to spamd and not the IP address 
on which spamd should listen on.


Regards,
-sm 



Re: [sa-list] Re: Spamd and ipv6

2008-11-30 Thread Dan Mahoney, System Admin

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, SM wrote:


At 21:45 30-11-2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Since getting my hosts natively speaking ipv6, I've been seeing a lot of 
initial timeouts connecting to spamc, because I believe it's apparently 
trying ipv6 first.


spamc: connect to spamd on 2001:470:1f07:a7f::1 failed, retrying (#1 of 3): 
Connection refused


[snip]

However, I cannot get the -A systax for spamd to accept connections from a 
given address, nor does it appear to be listening on said address:


quark# netstat -na | grep LIST | grep 783
tcp4   0  0  *.783  *.*LISTEN


Use the -i parameter to specify the IPv6 address.  The -A parameter to 
specify the host which can connect to spamd and not the IP address on which 
spamd should listen on.


So then, you're saying the behavior for ipv4 and ipv6 is somehow 
different?


I am starting spamd with -i but no ip specified, according to the docs:

If you specify no IP address after the switch, spamd will listen on all 
interfaces.  (This is equal to the address 0.0.0.0).


All Interfaces != 0.0.0.0

At the very least, this is a docbug and should be amended to say all 
ipv4 interfaces.


No mention is made of whether or not multiple -i arguments can be 
specified, but from my research, only the first -i is used, and you cannot 
comma-separate.


This is a second docbug, or a functionality that should be added to listen 
on v4 and v6 simultaneously.


Additionally, even when I get this working, I am unable to specify ipv6 
addresses to -A, either with or without square brackets.


Behaviorally, spamc *tries v6 by default* but spamd requires 
hoop-jumping.  This is a consistency problem and should also be looked 
into.


V6 is coming, fast.  Things like this are worth chasing down.  Let me know 
if you need me to run any other debugs or anything.


If you need access to my systems, please just say the word.  I like having 
something to offer in the solution of a problem, other than just 
complaints :)


-Dan

--

Man, this is such a trip

-Dan Mahoney, October 25, 1997

Dan Mahoney
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM
Site:  http://www.gushi.org
---