Patrik B?t:
> > The correct description is:
> >
> > When both IPv4 and IPv6 support are enabled, the Postfix SMTP
> > client, for Postfix versions prior to 2.8, will attempt to
> > connect via IPv6 before attempting to use IPv4. Starting
> > with 2.8 protocol preference is controll
On 2013-10-10 02:18, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> It does not fail to find it. It just uses IPv4. See:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtp_address_preference
>
> The documentation for
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#inet_protocols
>
> is sadly I believe out of date.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 02:39:41AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > The correct description is:
> >
> > When both IPv4 and IPv6 support are enabled, the Postfix SMTP
> > client, for Postfix versions prior to 2.8, will attempt to
> > connect via IPv6 before attempting to use IPv4. Sta
> The correct description is:
>
> When both IPv4 and IPv6 support are enabled, the Postfix SMTP
> client, for Postfix versions prior to 2.8, will attempt to
> connect via IPv6 before attempting to use IPv4. Starting
> with 2.8 protocol preference is controlled via the new
> sm
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:58:45AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
>
> > > Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
> > > the contrary are based on false speculation.
> >
> > Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
> >
> > Why does postfix sometimes not
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:58:45AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
> > the contrary are based on false speculation.
>
> Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
>
> Why does postfix sometimes not find the record for any giv
Dominik George:
> > Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
> > the contrary are based on false speculation.
>
> Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
>
> Why does postfix sometimes not find the record for any given MX?
Don't shoot the messenger of bad news. As
> Confirmed, Postfix looks at the answer section only. Claims to
> the contrary are based on false speculation.
Hmm, that leads us to the original question:
Why does postfix sometimes not find the record for any given MX?
-nik
--
# apt-assassinate --help
Usage: apt-assassinate [upstream|m
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
>
> > Most tools, mainly libc's resolver, seem to ignore the Additional
> > section and resolve relevant names on their owns, explicitly asking for
> > the RR types they are itnerested in, and that's what seems to b
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:47:34AM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> Most tools, mainly libc's resolver, seem to ignore the Additional
> section and resolve relevant names on their owns, explicitly asking for
> the RR types they are itnerested in, and that's what seems to be
> appropriate. Postfix, h
Hi,
while debugging the Google/IPv6 issue, we discovered something strange.
Our uplink provider operates caching DNS servers, and they reply with a
rather detailed Additional section when asked for MX records, but only
with cached results.
For example, if example.com has an MX record pointing to
11 matches
Mail list logo
