Danny et al,
I'm leaning towards Noel's reading of this. How strong are your objections? I don't want to commit anything before we have a consensus. --Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 3:47 PM > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: address-literal addressing not working > > 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:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
