search for: schrimpe

Hi there, Thanks for tinc, firstly. It's awesome. Now, I've found that if I specify: BindAddress = 127.0.0.1 655 Then my tincd cannot make outbound connections (on attempting to connect to another tinc daemon is receives 'Invalid argument'). Removing BindAddress fixes the issue. Unless I've misunderstood the purpose of this option, is this a bug? I'm running v1.0.35 on

> Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:45:34 +0000 > From: Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> > Subject: Re: [Dovecot] proctitle woes with 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.6 > To: Clemens Schrimpe <csch at kiez.net> > Cc: Dovecot Mailing List <dovecot at dovecot.org> > Message-ID: <1289839534.1764.138.camel at kurkku.sapo.corppt.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 02:25 +0100, Clemens Schrimpe wrote: >>&g...

...ake outbound connections when listening on loopback? I can't see any reason why it should. This system will never have other tinc daemons connect to it, it will only ever connect to other tinc daemons in order to establish a VPN connection. -- Jonny Tyers On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 22:03, Clemens Schrimpe <clemens.schrimpe at gmail.com> wrote: > > The only thing „localhost“ can talk to is „localhost“ - by definition & independently of tinc. > > What are you trying to accomplish with that choice? > > Clemens > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > > > Am 17.11.2018 u...

Hello - I just noticed, that there seems to be a change in the way "process titles" are being set between 2.0.6 and 2.0.7: Behavior of 2.0.6: (ps aux | fgrep dovecot) ------------------ root 30803 0.0 0.0 601540 708 ?? S 1:08AM 0:00.00 dovecot/log _dovecot 30802 0.0 0.0 601544 624 ?? S 1:08AM 0:00.00 dovecot/anvil root 30801 0.0 0.0

While digging through the code I remember having seen something like an (yet undocumented) "update_query" for SQL (and I guess something similar for the LDAP faction as well)?! Can that be used to augment the "doveadm pw" function to actually /set/ the password for a given user instead of just "calculating" the hash, so that an operator can copy&waste it into the

Hi In the case where you have access to TCP and UDP outbound initiated connections and no choice of the port numbers due to the firewall setup it would be very useful to be able to specify both the UDP and TCP ports that tinc uses separately. Currently in 1.0 I end up with a TCP based VPN because I can't tell tinc which UDP port to connect to the remote side on. Could this be added to 1.1?

Ok, here's a toughie: Out of a whim (and because of the bad weather) I today decided to upgrade my completely functioning 2.0.15 installation on my Mac OS X 10.6.7 system. NB: It's not a Mac OS X "Server", as sold by Apple - I have compiled my dovecots myself for quite a while. Anyhow: At first everything appeared to work fine after the upgrade. Up until I created a new user

Hello All (and Timo in particular :-) -- While reading through some of the conversations on this list over the past two weeks or so, I always thought "how would <this> particular problem affect you and how would you address it in your environment?". This results in a few suggestions, or "thing to wish for", which I thought others may find useful, hence I'm posting

Gentlepeople - I was about to add code to allow for specifying a „firewall mark“ for the traffic generated by tinc in order to make it easier to be policy routed and just wanted to check if somebody else might be „on it“ already. Was this discussed somewhere else already? Is it even already on the todo-list? Thanks, Clemens

The only thing „localhost“ can talk to is „localhost“ - by definition & independently of tinc. What are you trying to accomplish with that choice? Clemens Von meinem iPad gesendet > Am 17.11.2018 um 21:58 schrieb Jonny Tyers <jtyers at gmail.com>: > > Hi there, > > Thanks for tinc, firstly. It's awesome. Now, I've found that if I specify: > >

Update: I tried with 2.0.21 and this also works just fine. So it must be something which came in with 2.1.x PS: Where is the documentaion for 2.1.x - i.e. for all the nice additions Timo made? The Website "only" has 2.0.x, as far as I can tell? (might be wrong here - hadn't touched the whole thing for a while, as my "civil life" had occupied me :-) Greetings, Clemens