Re: [Exim] port number logging in received lines

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Philip Hazel
Date:  
To: Philip Blundell
CC: exim-users
Subject: Re: [Exim] port number logging in received lines
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Philip Blundell wrote:

> IPv6 address literals are just a disaster anyway.


Very true. What made them chose colon?

> The general consensus seems
> to be that when you use them in URLs and the like (where ports are also
> introduced with a colon) the address part is bracketed like so:
>
> http://[3ffe::1:2:3]:80/...


Oh, that's ugly.

> I agree that a dot is unambiguous in a strict technical sense, though I can
> see that it might be confusing for both humans and software. Marc's
> suggestion of "[10.1.0.14] port=55044 helo=..." seems reasonable enough to me.


But that's not the only place. There is also the H= field in log lines,
where you want a minimal representation, because log files are 10s of
megabytes long already, and also the input of such things in -bh and
-oMa options. I'd really prefer to have "address-and-port" as one thing
instead of two.

I *thought* I was following an established standard, but obviously I was
deluded. How about 1.2.3.4-25 and 3ffe::1:2:3-25 as an alternative?



-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@???      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.