Re: [Exim] Problems caused by localhost entry in Received

> Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
>> [ On Tuesday, January 6, 2004 at 16:23:24 (+0100), Christian Vogel
>> wrote: ]
>>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Exim] Problems caused by localhost entry in Received
>>>
>>> Why should 127.0.0.1 *not* be included in any blacklist?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Indeed -- and in fact 127.0.0.1 _should_ be included in every DNS
>> blacklist and whitelist in order to provide for a safe testing
>> mechanism.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Or rather: Why would anyone do a rbl-lookup for 127.0.0.1/localhost?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's a very good question! ;-)
>>
>>
> Possible answer:
>
> Because some MTAs, including Exim 3, will do it unless you explicitely
> tell them not to.
>
> (Exim's default for rbl_hosts is simply *, although you usually want
> something like !(127.0.0.1|^.*\.(<local domains>)))

Or perhaps that has nothing to do with it? I've always been under the
impression that the RBL checks would also consult the Received headers,
but I'm beginning to think I've been wrong all along. Are the headers
in any way checked automatically, or just the connecting IP of the SMTP
connection?

- Toralf