Phil Pennock wrote: [MX pointing to a loopback IP] > That could be dealt with using a dnsdb mxh lookup in a condition. > Whether or not you think this corner case worth dealing with is another > matter. > > More seriously -- what if the current DNS is broken? This might be why > they're moving their service to you. You should probably set > "pass_on_timeout" on the dnslookup_not_yet_hosted Router, so that if the > DNS is timing out then this Router declines the address and it's passed > onto the following Routers, which deal with it locally.
That's a good idea, but I won't include this because I then could think my e-mail (containing credentials) has reached the customer who's then going to complain after some days ;-) If I leave it out, I'll be aware of the misconfiguration and can ask her for other contact data. >> The ignore_target_hosts line is from Debian's dnslookup router. > > What, no multicast? :^) I've a vague recollection that the socket API > should fail to connect() a TCP socket to a multicast destination, but in > the interests of "this router has to be paranoid about existing DNS > having a high risk of being broken", it might be worth considering; > perhaps, if you do defend against localhost MX in a condition then you > can use the match_ip expansion condition to test it against a list. > > If you're not on Exim 4.67 yet then this paranoia is better left for > when you are, as it's a job for "forall". Debian stable is at 4.63 (see http://packages.debian.org/exim4). Paranoid routers depend on me being paranoid, which I'd prefer to decline :-) forall seems to be a cute condition. Peter -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
