Why do the docs for DMS + Traefik have config with "haproxy" referenced?

[navyjosh]

I am reading documentation at This URL

Then it goes on to list the Traefik docker-compose.yml file with a traefik service defined. Then scrolling down and reading the Postfix + Dovecot section, it looks like the configuration is specifying haproxy as the upstream proxy protocol.

I realize that the configuration for upstream protocol for haproxy and traefik proxy from the perspective of postfix probably is identical, so it might not matter here, but should we call this somthing else? Like "reverse_proxy" or something instead of "haproxy" to avoid confusion?

[polarathene]

is specifying haproxy as the upstream proxy protocol.

Please visit the referenced Postfix setting link directly below your screenshot of our docs page:

It'll provide you with the following:

You'll also noticed directly after in our docs the Dovecot config also uses haproxy:

With those settings also linking to the upstream Dovecot docs for them:

---

So you see "haproxy" is correct here in both cases. These are old software where the feature name reflects PROXY protocol v1 and v2 which spec is authored by the developers of HAProxy, hence the connection.

Traefik and Caddy can both enable support for PROXY protocol too, but it's still a protocol from HAProxy that became standardized.

I realize that the configuration for upstream protocol for haproxy and traefik proxy from the perspective of postfix probably is identical, so it might not matter here, but should we call this somthing else? Like "reverse_proxy" or something instead of "haproxy" to avoid confusion?

I don't think you'll be able to get that working the way you propose? Did you try it? reverse_proxy would not make much sense, this has nothing to do with that - PROXY protocol as explained in our docs is a way to preserve information that'd otherwise be lost (reverse proxies are less likely to have this problem for HTTP since that information can be carried through HTTP headers, but other protocols lack that thus PROXY protocol steps in):

---

Is there a different improvement you'd like to suggest to our docs that would avoid any confusion? I tend to cover these things fairly well, but I think when there is confusion by the reader it's because there's just quite a lot to read that they skip through most of it and wouldn't notice the improvement unless it's repeated at the location they're glancing at.

Generally complimentary information in our docs is collapsed (I've expanded it in the screenshot above), since the knowledge is already assumed thus redundant to the reader, or the reader isn't familiar with it but doesn't want to get lost in the technical details, just get the feature working.