Danny, > I can't see why this needs to be "fixed" it may be that you don't actually > want to handle mail delivered using IP addresses ...
Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2821 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt): "Sometimes a host is not known to the domain name system and communication (and, in particular, communication to report and repair the error) is blocked. To bypass this barrier a special literal form of the address is allowed as an alternative to a domain name." I read that as saying that the special literal form IS allowed, not that it MAY BE allowed. For example, if I normally count on domain names and your DNS server goes out, I can use the address-literal form to reach you. I do understand your differing understanding, and see a bit of US-centric political humor in that we are saying that it "depends upon what the definition of 'is' is." As for maintaining it by hand, not only don't I read it as optional, but for those of us dealing with virtual hosting, there can be quite a few IP addresses as well as domain names. I'd like the DNS to deal with that, not have to do it by hand. For example, within the next week or so, we're moving to a new ARIN block. When there is a DNS change, I'd like to make change in the DNS, not have to keep disjoint applications in synch. --- Noel -----Original Message----- From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 18:12 To: James Developers List Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 11795] New: - address-literal addressing not working Oh, now I see what this is about, Yes you have to specify that James will handle mail for the address literals as well as domain names, then it works. I can't see why this needs to be "fixed" it may be that you don't actually want to handle mail delivered using IP addresses, only FQDN's, for any number of reasons. Specifying ip address literals to be handled in the servernames section seems reasonable to me. My fix would be to simply document this requirement, and point out the reasoning. What do you think? d. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 August 2002 21:41 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 11795] New: - address-literal addressing not > working > > > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT > <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11795>. > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11795 > > address-literal addressing not working > > Summary: address-literal addressing not working > Product: James > Version: unspecified > Platform: Other > OS/Version: Other > Status: NEW > Severity: Normal > Priority: Other > Component: James Core > AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 2.1a1 doesn't appear to support <user@address-literal> addressing > as required > by the SMTP RFC. James.isServerLocal() does a simple String lookup in a > serverName collection, so unless the IP addresses are in the > collection, they > won't be matched. > > There are some reports that this is a regression, since it worked > with 2.0a3. > That should be tested. There was also an Open Relay defect in 2.0a3 that > might have masked this problem, depending upon the test. A patch > for this > defect has been submitted. > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
