Fred Viles wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2005 at 16:55, Wakko Warner wrote about
> "Re: [exim] My IP in smtp transport?":
>
> | This is also directed to Phil as well. I read the responses and I feel this
> | message would suffice to respond to all of them
>
> Not quite, at least to my understanding. You didn't acknowledge
> Philips mention of using the interface option in the smtp
> transport(s).
Yea, Sorry. That's what I meant by using -D on the command line to set the
source host.
> So I have to guess that that isn't helpful because you have reason to
> not want to exercise control over which interfaces are used for which
> outgoing messages?
I wanted it in the routing table so that I could also use telnet or other
tools to that destination. I have not dismissed using interfaces as an
option.
> Do you have multiple default routes? If not, I think you could
> combine your knowledge of the routing table with the destination host
> address to infer which interface will be used.
I didn't think of it that way, but yes, that could be done. Thanks for the
tip.
I really need everything destined for those IPs in a sand box on that box,
it has a local network address and loopback is set to listen for the /25 I
have, my firewall routs the /25 just to the local lan so I can move the /25
to any machine I want w/o much configuration. Until then, I'll live with
the goofy way the network is configured =)
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
Got Gas???
