Ah ok, so the postmaster or admin crafting that message is just a moron.
Thats what I suspected to begin with.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Dave C. wrote:
>
> > I had recently enabled log_incoming_port, and just received a report
> > from one of our users with the below text.
>
> This was discussed in a thread on the list several months ago. There was
> debate on exactly what should be done. In fact, I have done nothing to
> Exim 3. However, for Exim 4 I have changed things so that ports are
> given in this notation: [1.2.3.4]:25
>
> > > Your e-mail could not be delivered. Your mail service does not comply
> > > with RFC-822 regarding IP addresses in Received lines.
>
> With respect, this is nonsense. The IP address in the Received: line (if
> you are using the default configuration) is within an RFC (2)822 comment.
>
> Why are people so eager to quote RFC 822 without reading it? It says:
>
> received = "Received" ":" ; one per relay
> ["from" domain] ; sending host
> ["by" domain] ; receiving host
> ["via" atom] ; physical path
> *("with" atom) ; link/mail protocol
> ["id" msg-id] ; receiver msg id
> ["for" addr-spec] ; initial form
> ";" date-time ; time received
>
> I see no mention of any IP address in there.
>
> [I chose the a.b.c.d.p notation because that's what netstat uses, and it
> works with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. However, sigh, it seems to
> foul up too many things, which is why I'm changing it for Exim 4.]
>
>
--
