Hi Kevin, When do you plan to release 3.4.0 RC?
Thanks On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Kevin A. McGrail <kmcgr...@pccc.com> wrote: > > On 9/25/2012 5:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: >> >> I mentioned this on the mailing lists a few years ago. >> >> I notice that there still doesn't seem to be a clean way to just make >> spamd listen on all (v4 and v6) addresses by default, nor is there a way to >> listen on multiple addresses with multiple -A options. >> >> This means that if you want to listen on v6, none of your v4 clients can >> connect. >> >> I also note that like all standard resolver libraries, if you specify a >> hostname to spamc, it tries the v6 variant first -- so the default behaviors >> between spamc and spamd are still conflicting. Nor is there an option in >> spamc to say "use this hostname, but only try v4". >> >> Has anyone come up with patches for the above, or is the solution really >> to just hard-code the ipv4 address everywhere when doing a remote-connect >> (or perhaps define alternate v4-only hostnames for your spamd hosts). > > Hi Dan! > > I'm working on packaging an RC for 3.4.0 and ipv6 is a big focus of this > release. Can you open a bug about these issues with as much information as > you can, please? > > Regards, > KAM
