On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 04:29:49PM +0100,
Alan Thew <Alan.Thew@???> is thought to have said:
> I have a network that I'm blocking but they don't have any PTR RRs. Thus
> when I try ./exim -bh ip_address
>
> (where this is member of said netblock), I see
> >>> host in host_reject_recipients? yes (204.157.168.0/24 in /disk2/exim/tables/
> blocked-networks.real)
> LOG: recipients from [204.157.168.1] refused (failed to find host name from IP a
> ddress)
> ...
> 550-contact postmaster@??? for details
> 550 mail from 204.157.168.1 rejected: administrative prohibition (failed to find
> host name from IP address)
>
> Now while this is true, I'm not blocking sites that fail to have PTR RRs
> and even if they fix their DNS, they will still be blocked. Why does exim
> (3.30) do this? Is it because I've already done a host lookup (which has
> failed) and this somehow overrides the explicit block?
It's being blocked because it's IP is in your blocked networks. The
message is essentially saying mail from IP is rejected due to an
administrative prohibition (oh and by the way I couldn't do a DNS lookup
on it).
If there was a PTR RR you'd have something like:
550-contact postmaster@??? for details
550 mail from host.example.com 204.157.168.1 rejected: administrative prohibition
Tabor
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabor J. Wells twells@???
Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality
