Noel,
Thankyou. Sorry for beating a dead horse on this.
Greg
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I agree that the IPv6 IP's, bogus or otherwise, could cause a problem but that does not alter the fact that JAMES is throwing the exception (that is not getting caught), nor do I understand why JAMES was changed from a scheme that works fine
Because it didn't work fine. It had serious issues of its own that you just weren't aware of, such as ignoring TTL for DNS records requiring a reboot if a target domain changed IP address or a DNSRBL was updated.
As for the problem, the code you have from Microsoft is a beta. Hopefully Microsoft will fix it. In the meantime, I had reported the problem to Brian Wellington when we first noticed it, and we will likely trap the exception in a future James update if there isn't a dnsjava update to accommodate it.
--- Noel
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
