confirmation needed: was bug #4669 ever fixed in 9.18?

[Peter 'PMc' Much]

On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Doug Freed wrote:
! On 11/8/25 10:17, Peter 'PMc' Much wrote:
! > 
! > Changing 9.18 to 9.20, I suddenly see "permission denied" errors
! > for traffic that should happen, but apparently was never allowed
! > in the firewall.
! > 
! > Without another change here, this might mean that the traffic was
! > never raised by the firewall, because it was never actually sent.
! > 
! > 
! >                  also-notify {
! >                          192.168.99.1 key "slave2.daemon.contact.";
! >                          fd00::8101 key "slave2.daemon.contact.";
! >                  };
! > 
! > fd00::8101 is the address concerned.
! > Bug #4669 "Wrong source address used for IPv6 notify"
! > might provide a proper explanation, but that is a while back already.
! > 
! > 
! > cheers,
! > PMc
! 
! You can tell from the tags and linked MRs whether an issue was fixed in a
! given version or not; there'll be a green tag with the major version number
! (9.18, 9.20, etc) if the issue is fixed in that major version, and a linked
! backport MR for each major version as well.  There'll also be an "Affects"
! tag for each major version known to be affected, regardless of whether it's
! fixed or not.  #4669 only applies to 9.19 (the development version that is
! the precursor to 9.20), as notify sending was refactored in 9.19, and that
! refactoring is what introduced that bug.

Thank You very much, that is a helpful backstory.
So, named 9.18 did send the notify, but did not yet complain on EPERM.
The firewall did indeed complain, but one didn't bother to read that.

rgds,
PMc