On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Tamas TEVESZ wrote:
> > exim -bt someone@123.456.789.123 to see how that would be routed.
>
> plain wrong, to say the least.
>
> the fact that exim, when it is given literal ip addresses in the conf
> n stuff, does not want them to be enclosed in square brackets, does
> not mean that an address like that (that is, without square brackets)
> is right. it's not. such an address does not exist. it's not an
> address, per se. period.
False, I'm afraid.
"123.456.789.123" is a syntactically valid *domain name*.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
