Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:04:31 +0400 | From | Andrey Savochkin <> | Subject | Re: notion of a local address [was: Re: ioctl SIOCGIFNETMASK: ip alias bug 2.4.9 and 2.2.19] |
| |
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 06:47:42PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 08:44:23PM +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > > The question was which ip.address in user@[ip.address] should be treated as > > local. > > My comment was that the only reasonable solution on Linux is to treat this > > way addresses explicitly specified in the configuration file. > > Postfix may show its guess at the installation time. > > > > Now the question of recognizing user@[ip.address] as local is a question of a > > simple table lookup. > > It would be at least possible to ask the routing engine via RTM_GETROUTE > and checking for RTN_LOCAL if it considers an address local. > It won't cover all cases with netfilter rules etc.; but probably be a good > enough approximation.
Well, you need to enlist local addresses, not to verify, so I would suggest inspecting `local' routing table.
But it doesn't help with the other example I provided a couple of messages earlier: several MTAs on one system listening on their own IP addresses. Some time ago, when I was engaged in system administration activity, almost all my mail relays had several MTAs, each in its own chroot environments...
So, using routing in the post-install script to provide suggestion what should be written in the configuration file is very reasonable, probably, it's the best guess that the script can make.
Andrey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |