-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 647
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
mail/postfix: Add smtp_bind_address #665
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know postfix does it like this, but shouldn’t we add a bind interface selection and figure out all IPs? Proxy does it like this.
|
The problem with postfix is there are two ways ... receiving mails (also bound IP like in sockstat) and sending mails, tcp connection always opens on demand. Receiving mails would be handled via listen address field. We can do it like in this PR, or add another 2 fields for binding to the receiving daemon, which would be more confusing IMO. |
|
Oh .. binding to sender can only be one .. so select field is not a good option if you meant this |
|
I’m that case it’s ok as is (minus multi-select) but hidden under advanced toggle... this is prone to breakage. |
|
Like this? |
| @@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ | |||
| <default>all</default> | |||
| <Required>Y</Required> | |||
| </inet_interfaces> | |||
| <bind_address type="NetworkField"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we not pin this to an address family? if not the validation is leaky and may break postfix config
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You mean in temlating? if contains ':' bind6 else bind4 and only one bind field?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe this is more of a question for @AdSchellevis for the NetworkField type validation :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem is .. postfix has 2 directives, one for v4, one for v6, but, every directive is only allowed to have one value. I have no idea how to correctly build this .. not sure if this makes more work than solving a problem for one or two guys :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that's exactly why I mention it... the validation is not correct and it will create support efforts for other people who possibly cannot read but use advanced settings ... ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@fichtner How to go on with this? @AdSchellevis Is validation with mask only for TextField? I tried this for NetworkField:
v4
/^\d{1,3}.\d{1,3}.\d{1,3}.\d{1,3}$/
v6
/^([0-9a-fA-F:]){1,40}$/u
But doesn't seem to work ...
|
Merged, thanks! |
https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=8649.0