On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Richard Gould wrote:
> This happened because there were two MX records for
> gatekeeper.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk, one at preference 10 *and* one at 50.
> Obviously the DNS config doesn't make sense so the fix was to remove the
> MX duplicate record of preference 50 for gatekeeper.cmht.nwest.nhs.uk.
>
> So why did exim ignore the duplicate MX record?
The comment in the code says
/* Check that we haven't already got this host on the chain; if we have,
keep only the lower precedence. This situation shouldn't occur, but you
never know what junk might get into the DNS. */
so I did anticipate this case. However, a quick look over the code that
follows suggests that there is a bug in it such that the hosts may not
be correctly sorted according to precedence when this happens. I'll have
to check it more thoroughly to be sure, but if there is a bug, I'll get
it fixed.
Thanks for the report.
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Government Policy: If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
