"D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. Although the proposed fix, adding 0.0.0.0 to ipme, doesn't pose any kind of compatibility problem. -----ScottG.
- 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
