On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:18:11PM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > Patrick Bihan-Faou writes: > > If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a > > bug... > > In fact, it's not a bug; it's a portability problem. If you were using > OpenBSD, you'd see outgoing connections to 0.0.0.0 rejected with EINVAL. Even BSD/OS, under which qmail including 1.03 was developed, 0.0.0.0 is the localhost. It is so on every other OS. You are describing something that OpenBSD does different from the rest of the world. Greetz, Peter.
- Re: The joy of Qmail Charles Cazabon
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Dave Sill
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... paul
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... Dan Peterson
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handlin... Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Scott Gifford
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Greg Owen
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX reco... Scott Gifford
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX ... Paul Jarc
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an... Greg White
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handlin... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handlin... Scott Gifford
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of... Greg Owen
