On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Jim Popovitch writes:
>
> > For the purpose of something like fail2ban all that is needed is
> > the IPaddr. Having all the others would be a "nice to have", but
> > would really drive up the patch size.
>
> From 10 lines to 20? I'
P.S. I'm not at all opposed to the patch as you propose it, I'm just
thinking about loud about extensions. It's all blue sky though, and
you have a concrete reason for this. As the Timbot said:
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
The first is for y
Jim Popovitch writes:
> For the purpose of something like fail2ban all that is needed is
> the IPaddr. Having all the others would be a "nice to have", but
> would really drive up the patch size.
>From 10 lines to 20? I'd be more worried about the size of message or
msgdata objects.
> REMO
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Are you proposing this for inclusion in a future Mailman distribution?
Yes, at least for the 2.x trunk.
> If so, RFC 7239 Forwarded-For should be supported as well.
Sure, that makes good sense to add.
> Also, since one of the purpos
Are you proposing this for inclusion in a future Mailman distribution?
If so, RFC 7239 Forwarded-For should be supported as well.
Also, since one of the purposes of this information appears to be
detection of attacks of various kinds, I would think that instead of
falling back to REMOTE_HOST or RE
Hello,
I'm looking for feedback on the attached patch which adds support for
logging the real client IP address when Mailman is behind a proxy.
I'm also looking for feedback on the use of REMOTE_ADDR instead of REMOTE_HOST.
Ex:
-remote = os.environ.get('REMOTE_HOST',
+ remote = os.environ
