Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I was wondering if a
select all check box could be added to the statistics page for each section.
Right now, you check off the selection boxes for each server you want to
perform an action for, which is fine. But if you have 20(or more) servers
in
I believe that would be a question for the postfix folks in terms of how they
implemented support.
I know from implementing support in our own software, PROXY protocol seems
pretty agnostic about what follows it. It's just up to your backend software to
handle the logic switch from the PROXY "
> Am 18.10.2014 um 22:32 schrieb Jason J. W. Williams
> :
>
>> With incoming mail, I can make use of HAProxy’s send-proxy feature to make
>> the source-IP known to the backend SMTP-servers.
>> (Works in the lab, I just need to move a few hundred customers off port 25
>> for authenticated SMTP,
> With incoming mail, I can make use of HAProxy’s send-proxy feature to make
> the source-IP known to the backend SMTP-servers.
> (Works in the lab, I just need to move a few hundred customers off port 25
> for authenticated SMTP, as send-proxy is incompatible with authentication
> (right?))
se
Hi,
we use HAPROXY for incoming mail, outgoing mail (authenticated), POP3, IMAP.
With incoming mail, I can make use of HAProxy’s send-proxy feature to make the
source-IP known to the backend SMTP-servers.
(Works in the lab, I just need to move a few hundred customers off port 25 for
authenticat
Doh!
I'm getting old... thanks :-).
On 18 October 2014 15:37, David Coulson wrote:
> You mean like this?
>
> http://blog.haproxy.com/2014/10/15/haproxy-and-sslv3-poodle-vulnerability/
>
>
>
> On 10/18/14, 10:34 AM, Malcolm Turnbull wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking Haproxy could be used to block any
Hi,
Here's haproxy 1.5.6. It fixes the annoying bug reported this week
about disabled proxies, an issue in the URI hash (the question mark of
a query string was accidently hashed when present), an off-by-one when
checking the stick-counter number in "track-sc" rules, resulting in
the "track-sc3" a
You mean like this?
http://blog.haproxy.com/2014/10/15/haproxy-and-sslv3-poodle-vulnerability/
On 10/18/14, 10:34 AM, Malcolm Turnbull wrote:
I was thinking Haproxy could be used to block any non-TLS connection
Like you can with iptables:
https://blog.g3rt.nl/take-down-sslv3-using-iptables
I was thinking Haproxy could be used to block any non-TLS connection
Like you can with iptables:
https://blog.g3rt.nl/take-down-sslv3-using-iptables.html
However it would be nice if you had users trying to connect via IE6/7
etc on XP to display a nice message like, please upgrade to a secure
b
Hi Heiko,
>> Also, please try the bind keywords no-tlsv12, no-tlsv11 and
>> "ciphers TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA". If this makes it work, please apply
>> the attached debug patch and just run it with force-tlsv10, I would like
>> to know if that call fails.
>
> I added the parameters except TLS_RSA_
10 matches
Mail list logo