Author: Dave C. Date: To: Philip Hazel CC: Jeffrey Goldberg, Paul Walsh, exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] port number logging in received lines
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
> > The concern about "-" is that it might look like a number range. Now I
> > know that a range of IP addresses makes no sense in that context, we are
> > trying to avoid ambiguity.
>
> You are right. :-(
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Paul Walsh wrote:
>
> > How about some other character to delimit IP address and port?
> >
> > exim -bh 1.2.3.4~9876
> >
> > exim -bh 1.2.3.4^9876
> >
> > exim -bh 1.2.3.4_9876
> >
> > exim -bh 1.2.3.4=9876
>
> Oh, they all have problems, don't they? It's a pity that "." is not
> liked, because I still believe that that has the least problems in the
> long run.
>
> Maybe by the time Exim 4 comes out there will be a standard? I don't
> suppose I'll be that lucky...
I have seen quite a few instances where the format 1.2.3.4:9876 is
used. URLs, for instance; the output of netstat -tn, for another;
Netscape Communicator uses that format if you need to specify a port
number for a POP or SMTP host; and some (non unix) telnet clients use
it as well. This may be a defacto format, regardless of how much of a
mess it makes with IPv6.
<GRIN>
GOing to the extreme, you could always add an option:
