Re: Spoofing as the postmaster

Brendan Jurd wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:37ed240d0712221807w6d6c0ffbib15b17aaa48b0482@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><br
/><prewrap="">It doesn't solve the spoofing attack problem, but isn't Gurjeet's idea
 
a good one in any case? </pre></blockquote> What makes it good? It solves no problems. It prevents the server from
comingup when it otherwise might still be able to.<br /><blockquote
cite="mid:37ed240d0712221807w6d6c0ffbib15b17aaa48b0482@mail.gmail.com"type="cite"><pre wrap="">
 
If the postmaster can't bind on one of the specified interfaces, then
at the least, haven't you got got a serious configuration error the
sysadmin would want to know about?  Having postmaster fail seems like
a sensible response. </pre></blockquote> I don't think it really matters what it does in the grand scheme of things, as
it'snot solving a real problem.<br /><blockquote cite="mid:37ed240d0712221807w6d6c0ffbib15b17aaa48b0482@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><prewrap="">
 
"I can't start with the configuration you've given me, so I won't
start at all" is fairly normal behaviour for a server process, no</pre></blockquote> None of my servers work this way.
Ifpossible, I try to make my servers auto-recover at a later time while they are still up. It means an administrator
doesnot need to login to a machine at the data center to solve the problem. "Self healing" is a term that is used to
describeapproaches such as this.<br /><br /> Cheers,<br /> mark<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
 
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>