Feature Request

2014-10-18 Thread Brent Kennedy
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

Re: HAPROXY for IMAP, SMTP

2014-10-18 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
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 "

Re: HAPROXY for IMAP, SMTP

2014-10-18 Thread Rainer Duffner
> 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,

Re: HAPROXY for IMAP, SMTP

2014-10-18 Thread 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, as send-proxy is incompatible with authentication > (right?)) se

HAPROXY for IMAP, SMTP

2014-10-18 Thread Rainer Duffner
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

Re: Just had a thought about the poodle issue....

2014-10-18 Thread Malcolm Turnbull
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

[ANNOUNCE] haproxy-1.5.6

2014-10-18 Thread Willy Tarreau
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

Re: Just had a thought about the poodle issue....

2014-10-18 Thread David Coulson
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

Just had a thought about the poodle issue....

2014-10-18 Thread Malcolm Turnbull
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

RE: Switching Java client to Websocket with SSL // Connection closed during SSL handshake

2014-10-18 Thread Lukas Tribus
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_