On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Neal Becker wrote:
> So the second MX is really to the same address as the first!
> Obviously this is broken. Apparantly exim treats this as if there was
> really only a single MX record, which is fine, although it seems to
> suggest code robustness above and beyond the call of duty.
Well, Exim doesn't have any special code to deal with this, and when I
tried it (using an invalid port number, to force "connection refused")
it tried both MX records, but reflected the canonical name both times:
Connecting to misnt1.cws.comsat.com [134.133.176.130] ... failed
LOG: MAIN
misnt1.cws.comsat.com [134.133.176.130]: Connection refused
Connecting to misnt1.cws.comsat.com [134.133.176.130] ... failed
LOG: MAIN
misnt1.cws.comsat.com [134.133.176.130]: Connection refused
I can see how that is confusing!
--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service,
ph10@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
P.Hazel@??? England. Phone: +44 1223 334714
