Matthias Wimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Carey! > > Carey Jung schrieb am 2004-05-03 08:26:15: >> Good question. It just adds to my administrative burden. Also, in my >> current case, the sending MX records look like this: >> >> MX 8 n.n.n.n. > > By adding the final "." to this record you already noticed, that also > what the nameserver expects is a domain. If you add "12.23.34.45." it's > something different than the IP address 12.23.34.45 - it's a hostname. > And a normal implementation won't handle it as an IP address but resolve > it again. If there are implementations that try to guess is something is > an IP or a domain, than they can make wrong assumptions (why are you > sure that it is an IP address?) and all this checks are just workarounds > for broken records. > It's not that courier forces you do do something which would work ... > it's that courier does not implement a workaround for a bug ... not only > because it's not legal according to the RFC ... it's even wrong from the > natural sematics.
Well, one thing that Courier _could_ do when it encounters an unresolvable MX record would be to try the next MX record in the series. The original post said that the MX records look like this: > MX 8 n.n.n.n. > MX 10 mail.foobar.com. In this case, Courier could try using the "mail.foobar.com." record after the "n.n.n.n." record fails to resolve, instead of immediately erroring out. Is there a reason for why Courier doesn't behave in this manner? -- Lloyd Zusman 01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^ God bless you. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
