Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote... >>> To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] >>> ^ JA>> I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA>> just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA>> SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived > JA>> intact. > Hmmm... it's interesting. Maybe your recent tries were successful > because you're using an 1.63 Beta/5 version of the TB!. Mine was > 1.62e and is 1.62i now. It could be that they fixed it... I cannot see anything in the beta files that mentions it, so it could have silently been fixed. So you are possibly quite correct. JA>> The question is, what was the error message you got back from JA>> your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get JA>> one? > Yes, here it is: > ---[Cut]--- >- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - > [..] > The server is running Sendmail 8.12.6 under FreeBSD 4.7-Release. - From a guess, TB! seems to want to put in the \ for some reason. Not sure why they'd do it, but they do... That clearly is killing the sending of the mail. Now... here is something odd... I just tested again with Sendmail, and managed to break it, it appeared to have added the \, but a retest on postfix found it worked just fine. So either postfix is stripping the \ in the [ ] or some oddities are going on somewhere between. As for how I got it to work with Sendmail the first time is something completely different. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkGTWCuD6BT4/R9zEQIThgCghclb4IY5MRNtRO5gHh5bftbgAyEAnjSg KTnaSPOX06DDNJkpzSwljgrd =YdgF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello! Wed Feb 5 2003 23:26:01 Jonathan Angliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses >> to the following form causing another bounce: JA> [..] >> To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] >> ^ JA> I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA> just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA> SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA> intact. Hmmm... it's interesting. Maybe your recent tries were successful because you're using an 1.63 Beta/5 version of the TB!. Mine was 1.62e and is 1.62i now. JA> The question is, what was the error message you got back from your JA> undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? Yes, here it is: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - - Transcript of session follows - 550 5.1.2 ... Host unknown (Name server: [80\.80\.100\.216]: host not found) ---[Cut]--- The server is running Sendmail 8.12.6 under FreeBSD 4.7-Release. -- Yours sincerely, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) http://www.andris.msk.ru/ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Spike wrote... JA>> I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA>> just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA>> SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA>> intact. The question is, what was the error message you got back JA>> from your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even JA>> get one? > OK, I stand (or sit!) corrected. I just tried it on ALL my mail > accounts and they all responded "NOT SENT: Domain litereals not > allowed" ;-( It could be they have the domain literals shut off. I believe it is possible with a bit of tweaking, and chances are, they probably do it for security reasons or something like that... but they are very useable, and are documented in the RFCs :) - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkF6KiuD6BT4/R9zEQJglACgrsA9DZvPwaLsfaj6EbJ0qgzFG+cAn2w8 3SntPE7S6kLbYj6e9W8wwT2h =kv4J -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hallo Jonathan, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:18:38 -0600GMT (5-2-03, 21:18 +0100, where I live), you wrote: JA> IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] JA> otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in JA> the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested JA> AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to JA> working around issues such as DNS outages. I stand corrected. They aren't mentioned in rfc2822 and I didn't check rfc2821 (where they are mentioned in sec 4.1.3) before I was rebuked. Without [] I got a test delivered and with I didn't, so I thought... -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote... > I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP > address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). [..] > In case you want anyone at mail.tp.ru host to be notified about this > misconfiguration you should bypass the non-working MX record by using > the following form of the e-mail address: > mailbox@[80.80.100.216] This is correct, yes. > Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses > to the following form causing another bounce: [..] > To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] > ^ I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived intact. The question is, what was the error message you got back from your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkFzXiuD6BT4/R9zEQLBZQCg+hSIiC21Q5A7ot2W3ipNmXP57FoAoPdJ gt3aCwyBaDBeF/KHpzqN17A9 =WLU4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Roelof Otten wrote... > AGSAA> I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an > IP AGSAA> address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is > a AGSAA> good example. > [192.168.203.12] isn't an ip-address. Leave the brackets and it'll > do as you expected. So the address would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The difference is clear when you type the addresses in the editor: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is immediately underlined as a valid url > mailbox@[192.168.203.12] is seen as plain text. IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to working around issues such as DNS outages. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkFxoiuD6BT4/R9zEQLUJwCg68XP2Ey+KAPXkzP/hfCjd5bNDJYAoPoY m1XGHAc2bf2q017UVzn2OIz+ =oAx4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hallo Andrey, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:14:26 +0300GMT (5-2-03, 19:14 +0100, where I live), you wrote: AGSAA> I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP AGSAA> address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a AGSAA> good example. [192.168.203.12] isn't an ip-address. Leave the brackets and it'll do as you expected. So the address would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference is clear when you type the addresses in the editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is immediately underlined as a valid url mailbox@[192.168.203.12] is seen as plain text. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris), On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 21:14:26GMT +0300 (which was 1:14 PM in the tropics where I live) Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) postulated: AGSAA> I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address AGSAA> directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a good example. 8< Snipped alot! Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm sure IP addresses are not rout-able as an e-mail recipient. I can't find the appropriate RFC, but I'm sure I read this somewhere. I just tried to send myself a message using my ISP's domain IP and it came back as; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unrouteable address Also the IP of the POP3 server came back; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unrouteable address IP specifics removed to prevent harvesting of data! The error returned in Andrey's message said; AGSAA>- Transcript of session follows - AGSAA> 550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: tp.aaanet.ru.: host not found) AGSAA> ---[Cut]--- This indicates the DNS listing is in error or the domain doesn't exist. This is further supported by; AGSAA> Subject: mail.tp.ru MX record is invalid Am I off base here? -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike Never trust a woman who tells you her real age; if she tells you that, she'll tell you anything. (Oscar Wilde) -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
