I am not too bothered, as I will work out how to handle this, but I have
replicated this
where one address was local and the other remote.
18:47:26 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x <= <> H=(mail.somewhere.com) [IP Address ......
18:47:26 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x => user@??? R=remote T=r.....
18:47:26 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x => user@??? R=remote T=remote_smtp
both domains have no link to each other whatsoever, and the exim config
is not using any smart hosting. MX records are definitely not the same.
Steve
Fred Viles wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2004 at 0:15, Steve Falla wrote about
> "[exim] Multiple rcpt to log entries":
>
>|...
>| My problem is that totally against the specification, I am seeing logs
>| that are marking multiple
>| deliveries all with a =>
>|
>| eg
>|
>| 18:47:26 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x <= <> H=(mail.somewhere.com) [IP Address ......
>| 18:47:26 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x => user1@??? R=remote T=r.....
>| 18:47:26 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x -> user2@??? R=remote T=remote_smtp
>| H=host......
>
>Hmm. I'd guess "domain1.com" and "domain2.com" are really the same
>name, or if not both domains are handled by the same MX host.
>
>| 18:47:30 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x => user3@??? R=remote T=remote_smtp
>| H=host2.....
>
>Whereas "domain3.com" really is a different domain handled by a
>different MX host.
>
>| 18:47:30 1CCM4T-0002Rj-2x Completed
>|...
>| Is this a bug with Exim, or is the documentation just wrong?
>
>Neither, AFAICT from the obfuscated information you posted.
>
>| From website documentation:
>|
>| 45.7
>|
>| When more than one address is included in a single delivery (for
>| example, two SMTP RCPT commands in one transaction) the second and
>| subsequent addresses are flagged with "->" instead of "=>". When two or
>| more messages are delivered down a single SMTP connection, an asterisk
>| follows the IP address in the log lines for the second and subsequent
>| messages.
>
>Your example is showing a message being relayed to multiple remote
>hosts. It seems likely that the *deliverys* (outgoing SMTP sessions)
>were actually separate. You are perhaps confusing "single reception"
>with "single delivery"?
>
>- Fred
>
>
>
>
>
>
