On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Phil's on vacation (wishing him a good one!), but maybe someone have an idea
> about this one. I think this should be fixed in the code, but, who knows.
I wasn't on vacation - I was teaching an ISP all about Exim. Still, it
made a nice change.
> Which means that the IPv4 address _is_ on RBL, but Exim got it in
> IPv4-in-IPv6 notation, probably looked up a wrong reverse and let the spam
> flow in.
Ooops. Sorry about that. It seems that the IPv6 code is now starting to
be exercised for real, and all the bugs I put in there a long time ago
are waking up. :-)
> You should simply look up IPv4 reverse for such addresses. I thought you
> did, but seems the other way.
Indeed. Places where I forgot about this have been turning up lately.
Thanks for the report.
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Philip Blundell wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> >Sigh, I think you are right. This patch is untested but I think it's along
> >roughly the right lines. Let me know if it helps any.
>
> Doh -- pasted in the wrong bit of the patch. Let's try that again. Sorry.
Thanks, Philip. I'll incorporate that (or something like it) in due
course.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
