Re: [Exim] Most probably bug with host lists verifying

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Andrew V Stikheev
Date:  
To: ph10
CC: exim-users
Subject: Re: [Exim] Most probably bug with host lists verifying
According to Andrew V Stikheev:
> According to Philip Hazel:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2004, Andrew V Stikheev wrote:
> >
> > > If in a hosts list (hostlist,smtp_ratelimit_hosts,rfc1413_hosts,...)
> > > a non-existent domain is included, then exim doesn't try to match
> > > the verified host with the list items after the non-existent domain
> > > and treats the verified host as not present in the hosts list.
> > > If a "+include_unknown" string is present in the list prior to non-existent
> > > domain, then exim treats the verified host as present in the hosts list.
> >
> > As specified.

Also I want to add, that a result of verifying depends on the order of hosts in
the hostlist:

       1)   hostlist relay_from_hosts = non-existent-domain : 192.168.0.1
            Relay from 192.168.0.1 not permitted.


       2)   hostlist relay_from_hosts = 192.168.0.1 : non-existent-domain
            Relay from 192.168.0.1 permitted.


Is it also specified?
> >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > 1) hostlist relay_from_hosts = non-existent-domain : 192.168.0.1
> > >
> > > In this case relay from 192.168.0.1 not permitted.
> >
> > Correct. Exim assumes you have screwed up by specifying a non-existent
> > host. So it takes a cautious line.
>    But it's wrong assumption, because it's may be a temporary dns problem,
>   for example a error after regular reconfiguration. In this situation
>   relay not permitted from all hosts until I'm fixed this error in dns.
>   Relay from all hosts not permitted because of the problem with only the one.
>   Imho, it's a wrong strategy.

>
> What about a smtp_ratelimit_hosts? In this case the rate limit is disabled for
> all hosts. Is it right?
>
> >
> > > 2) hostlist relay_from hosts = +include_unknown : non-existent-domain
> > >
> > > In this case relay permitted from any host.
> >
> > Sounds like you want a new feature called +ignore_unknown.
> It will be the best solution. By default :)?
> >
> > --
> >
> --
> P.S. I'm not recieved your letter to sand@???, so i can't reply.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Andrew V Stikheev               Russian Institute
> E-mail: sand@???                  for
> Phone:+7 095 192-9179            Public Networks

>



--
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew V Stikheev               Russian Institute
E-mail: sand@???                  for
Phone:+7 095 192-9179            Public Networks