<-- Warning: charset 'X-UNKNOWN' is not supported -->
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Derek Broughton wrote:
> From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <exim@???>
>
>
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 11:27:07AM +0100, V?geli Marc wrote:
> > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of
> its
> > > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
> failed:
> > > proxy@192.168.201.22
> > > unrouteable mail domain "192.168.201.22"
> ...
> > OK. you haven't specified an IP address there, if you want to use
> mail, can
>
> I beg to differ. While the correct way to specify an IP may be in
> brackets, it's obvious from the error ("unrouteable") that Exim did,
> in fact, understand that to be an IP.
Uhm, actually, no, it didnt. It attempted to resolve it as a _domain_,
which is why it said unroutable mail _domain_.
That is, it tried to look in the DNS for an all-numeric domain of
192.168.201.22. Since .22 isn't even a valid TLD, the DNS of course
returned 'NXDOMAIN', much like my query below.
$ dig 192.168.201.22 mx
; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> 192.168.201.22 mx
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; 192.168.201.22, type = MX, class = IN
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
. 1D IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
nstld.verisign-grs.com. (
2001112300 ; serial
30M ; refresh
15M ; retry
1W ; expiry
1D ) ; minimum
While theoritically using the user@[ip.ad.re.ss] format is technically
valid, it is a terribly archaic manner of addressing, and should be
obsoleted, if it isnt officially already, at least on the public
Internet. No mailhost I run will ever accept that as a sender or
recipient address, local or remote.
> > You will also want the local_domains_include_host_literals
> > option.
>
> Which is probably good enough.
>
> derek
>
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
--
