Just a sample of the Echomail archive
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
|  Message 785  |
|  Wilfred van Velzen to Tim Schattkowsky  |
|  Re^2: Problem ipv6 vs ipv4  |
|  24 Jun 22 08:33:42  |
 TID: FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815 RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes TZUTC: 0200 CHRS: UTF-8 2 PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 MSGID: 2:280/464 62b5695c REPLY: 2:240/1120.29 8cefcf84 Hi Tim, On 2022-06-21 19:24:31, you wrote to Ulrich Schroeter: US>> ,5555,Nieuw_Schnoord,Driebergen,Michiel_van_der_Vlist,-Unpublished-,3 US>> 00,M N,CM,MO,XW,IBN:fido.vlist.eu,IBN:fido4to6.vlis US>> t.eu,PING,TRACE,U,ENC,RPK,NPK,NC US>> and here you can find the related FQDNs US>> I would give it a try with these 2 listed FQDNs TS> Oh. So is this whole IPv4/IPv6 discussion here about the idea that WP TS> should try the other entry from the nodelist? No that's another matter. What WP should do is if a hostname resolves to multiple IP's (IPv6 or IPv4), try them all in the order the OS presents them, until one succeeds. Bye, Wilfred. --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464) SEEN-BY: 15/0 106/201 124/5016 129/331 153/757 7715 203/0 221/0 229/110 SEEN-BY: 229/111 112 113 317 426 428 470 664 700 266/512 280/464 5003 SEEN-BY: 280/5555 282/1038 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 317/3 320/219 SEEN-BY: 341/234 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 2452/250 PATH: 280/464 712/848 229/426 |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]