If we consider it as a work in progress, is it a good idea then to "publish"
it via wsconsctl immediately? Shouldn't we leave wsconsctl as it is until
we have figured out what to do, or at least hide that new field? And, speaking
of hiding, it is for a feature that's only useful for a subset of t
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > Anyone checking their mailboxes in the installer's interactive shell?
>
> The installer creates some mails, right? Do they only ever go into
> a newly installed system, never into a mailbox within the installer?
It does not use any mechanism close t
Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Anyone checking their mailboxes in the installer's interactive shell?
The installer creates some mails, right? Do they only ever go into
a newly installed system, never into a mailbox within the installer?
//Peter
Hi,
This is another try to add table-procexec to smtpd. This allows for table
backends to communicate with smtpd with a very simple line protocol, similar to
filter proc-exec.
The code is simple enough and after a bit of time can be used as a replace for
table-proc (which uses imsg). Currentl
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 10:56:03AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> In IMSG_CTL_SHOW_NEIGHBOR a struct peer is sent from the SE to the RDE to
> fill out 10 values. This is a waste of IO, struct peer is over 1000 bytes
> large. Instead just pass the peerid to the RDE, let the rde send back a
> stats ob
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:42:11PM -0600, joshua stein wrote:
> $ for i in `seq 5` ; do nc 192.168.1.240 22 & done
> [2] 68892
> [3] 6303
> [4] 63554
> [5] 87833
> [6] 49997
> $ SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.1
> SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.1
> SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.1
> SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.1
> SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_9.1
>
In IMSG_CTL_SHOW_NEIGHBOR a struct peer is sent from the SE to the RDE to
fill out 10 values. This is a waste of IO, struct peer is over 1000 bytes
large. Instead just pass the peerid to the RDE, let the rde send back a
stats object and have the control code do the merge.
Introduce struct rde_peer_
