Re: [EXIM] Received-Format not compliant to RFC 822?

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Greg A. Woods
Date:  
To: Philip Hazel
CC: Georg v.Zezschwitz, exim-users, service
New-Topics: [EXIM] Mailing Lists and Exim
Subject: Re: [EXIM] Received-Format not compliant to RFC 822?
[ On Fri, January 2, 1998 at 10:13:34 (+0000), Philip Hazel wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [EXIM] Received-Format not compliant to RFC 822?
>
> The simplest change, of course, would be to enclose the IP address in
> parentheses, so that you get ([1.2.3.4]) instead of just [1.2.3.4]. If
> this were done to sender_fullhost, it would add only 2 bytes per message
> to the log. The variations would be


That's effectively what I've done for the default header in smail.

I went to extremes with the smail default, putting all the info I had
available into the header when possible.

>   H=a.b.c.d ([1.2.3.4])   Host name verified by reverse lookup; HELO 
>                           name is the same as host name (or no HELO).


Yes, this is what I do.

>   H=[1.2.3.4]             No reverse lookup; no HELO.


(not possible in smail!)

> H=(a.b.c.d) [1.2.3.4] No reverse lookup; HELO = a.b.c.d.
>
>   H=a.b.c.d (x.y.z) ([1.2.3.4])  Reverse lookup gave a.b.c.d; HELO was
>                                  x.y.z. I guess the two parenthesized 
>                                  bits could be amalgamated into one:
>   H=a.b.c.d (x.y.z [1.2.3.4])


I do:

    H=x.y.z (a.b.c.d [1.2.3.4])


because that makes more sense with the true IP and PTR result together
in the comment and the HELO text always in the "from" parameter.

-- 
                            Greg A. Woods


+1 416 443-1734      VE3TCP      <gwoods@???>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>


--
*** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***