[exim-cvs] cvs commit: exim/exim-doc/doc-txt ChangeLog NewSt…

Página superior
Eliminar este mensaje
Responder a este mensaje
Autor: Philip Hazel
Fecha:  
A: exim-cvs
Asunto: [exim-cvs] cvs commit: exim/exim-doc/doc-txt ChangeLog NewStuff exim/exim-src ACKNOWLEDGMENTS exim/exim-src/src verify.c exim/exim-test/confs 0139 exim/exim-test/scripts/0000-Basic 0139 exim/exim-t
ph10 2007/01/17 11:17:59 GMT

  Modified files:
    exim-doc/doc-txt     ChangeLog NewStuff 
    exim-src             ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
    exim-src/src         verify.c 
    exim-test/confs      0139 
    exim-test/scripts/0000-Basic 0139 
    exim-test/stderr     0139 
    exim-test/stdout     0139 
  Log:
  Fix negated dnslists item bug; add == and =& features, courtesy Brad
  Jorsch.


  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.454     +13 -0     exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog
  1.127     +68 -0     exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/NewStuff
  1.68      +2 -1      exim/exim-src/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  1.46      +79 -32    exim/exim-src/src/verify.c
  1.3       +17 -0     exim/exim-test/confs/0139
  1.3       +8 -0      exim/exim-test/scripts/0000-Basic/0139
  1.3       +101 -0    exim/exim-test/stderr/0139
  1.3       +16 -0     exim/exim-test/stdout/0139


  Index: ChangeLog
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v
  retrieving revision 1.453
  retrieving revision 1.454
  diff -u -r1.453 -r1.454
  --- ChangeLog    16 Jan 2007 21:00:29 -0000    1.453
  +++ ChangeLog    17 Jan 2007 11:17:58 -0000    1.454
  @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
  -$Cambridge: exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v 1.453 2007/01/16 21:00:29 magnus Exp $
  +$Cambridge: exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v 1.454 2007/01/17 11:17:58 ph10 Exp $


Change log file for Exim from version 4.21
-------------------------------------------
@@ -12,6 +12,19 @@

   PH/01 Added a new log selector smtp_no_mail, to log SMTP sessions that do not
         issue a MAIL command.
  +
  +PH/02 In an ACL statement such as
  +
  +        deny dnslists = X!=127.0.0.2 : X=127.0.0.2
  +
  +      if a client was not listed at all, or was listed with a value other than
  +      127.0.0.2, in the X list, but was listed with 127.0.0.2 in the Y list,
  +      the condition was not true (as it should be), so access was not denied.
  +      The bug was that the ! inversion was incorrectly passed on to the second
  +      item. This has been fixed.
  +
  +PH/03 Added additional dnslists conditions == and =& which are different from
  +      = and & when the dns lookup returns more than one IP address.



Exim version 4.66

  Index: NewStuff
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/NewStuff,v
  retrieving revision 1.126
  retrieving revision 1.127
  diff -u -r1.126 -r1.127
  --- NewStuff    15 Jan 2007 15:59:22 -0000    1.126
  +++ NewStuff    17 Jan 2007 11:17:58 -0000    1.127
  @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
  -$Cambridge: exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/NewStuff,v 1.126 2007/01/15 15:59:22 ph10 Exp $
  +$Cambridge: exim/exim-doc/doc-txt/NewStuff,v 1.127 2007/01/17 11:17:58 ph10 Exp $


   New Features in Exim
   --------------------
  @@ -37,6 +37,74 @@
       the last 20 are listed, preceded by "...". However, with the default
       setting of 10 for smtp_accep_max_nonmail, the connection will in any case
       be aborted before 20 non-mail commands are processed.
  +
  + 2. When an item in a dnslists list is followed by = and & and a list of IP
  +    addresses, in order to restrict the match to specific results from the DNS
  +    lookup, the behaviour was not clear when the lookup returned more than one
  +    IP address. For example, consider the condition
  +
  +      dnslists = a.b.c=127.0.0.1
  +
  +    What happens if the DNS lookup for the incoming IP address yields both
  +    127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2 by means of two separate DNS records? Is the
  +    condition true because at least one given value was found, or is it false
  +    because at least one of the found values was not listed? And how does this
  +    affect negated conditions?
  +
  +    The behaviour of = and & has not been changed; however, the text below
  +    documents it more clearly. In addition, two new additional conditions (==
  +    and =&) have been added, to permit the "other" behaviour to be configured.
  +
  +    A DNS lookup may yield more than one record. Thus, the result of the lookup
  +    for a dnslists check may yield more than one IP address. The question then
  +    arises as to whether all the looked up addresses must be listed, or whether
  +    just one is good enough. Both possibilities are provided for:
  +
  +    . If = or & is used, the condition is true if any one of the looked up
  +      IP addresses matches one of the listed addresses. Consider:
  +
  +        dnslists = a.b.c=127.0.0.1
  +
  +      If the DNS lookup yields both 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2, the condition is
  +      true because 127.0.0.1 matches.
  +
  +    . If == or =& is used, the condition is true only if every one of the
  +      looked up IP addresses matches one of the listed addresses. Consider:
  +
  +        dnslists = a.b.c==127.0.0.1
  +
  +      If the DNS lookup yields both 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2, the condition is
  +      false because 127.0.0.2 is not listed. You would need to have
  +
  +        dnslists = a.b.c==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +
  +      for the condition to be true.
  +
  +    When ! is used to negate IP address matching, it inverts the result, giving
  +    the precise opposite of the behaviour above. Thus:
  +
  +    . If != or !& is used, the condition is true if none of the looked up IP
  +      addresses matches one of the listed addresses. Consider:
  +
  +        dnslists = a.b.c!&0.0.0.1
  +
  +      If the DNS lookup yields both 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2, the condition is
  +      false because 127.0.0.1 matches.
  +
  +    . If !== or !=& is used, the condition is true there is at least one looked
  +      up IP address that does not match. Consider:
  +
  +        dnslists = a.b.c!=&0.0.0.1
  +
  +      If the DNS lookup yields both 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2, the condition is
  +      true, because 127.0.0.2 does not match. You would need to have
  +
  +        dnslists = a.b.c!=&0.0.0.1,0.0.0.2
  +
  +      for the condition to be false.
  +
  +    When the DNS lookup yields only a single IP address, there is no difference
  +    between = and == and between & and =&.



Version 4.66

  Index: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-src/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS,v
  retrieving revision 1.67
  retrieving revision 1.68
  diff -u -r1.67 -r1.68
  --- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    19 Dec 2006 14:51:34 -0000    1.67
  +++ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    17 Jan 2007 11:17:58 -0000    1.68
  @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
  -$Cambridge: exim/exim-src/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS,v 1.67 2006/12/19 14:51:34 ph10 Exp $
  +$Cambridge: exim/exim-src/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS,v 1.68 2007/01/17 11:17:58 ph10 Exp $


EXIM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
Philip Hazel

Lists created: 20 November 2002
-Last updated: 19 December 2006
+Last updated: 17 January 2007


   THE OLD LIST
  @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@
                             Patch for negative uid/gid bug
   Brad Jorsch               Patch for bitwise logical operators
                             Patch for using "message" on acceptance
  +                          Patch to add == and =& to dnslists
   Christian Kellner         Patch for LDAP dereferencing
   Alex Kiernan              Patches for libradius
                             Diagnosis of milliwait clock-backwards bug


  Index: verify.c
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-src/src/verify.c,v
  retrieving revision 1.45
  retrieving revision 1.46
  diff -u -r1.45 -r1.46
  --- verify.c    8 Jan 2007 10:50:18 -0000    1.45
  +++ verify.c    17 Jan 2007 11:17:58 -0000    1.46
  @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
  -/* $Cambridge: exim/exim-src/src/verify.c,v 1.45 2007/01/08 10:50:18 ph10 Exp $ */
  +/* $Cambridge: exim/exim-src/src/verify.c,v 1.46 2007/01/17 11:17:58 ph10 Exp $ */


   /*************************************************
   *     Exim - an Internet mail transport agent    *
  @@ -29,6 +29,12 @@
   static tree_node *dnsbl_cache = NULL;



+/* Bits for match_type in one_check_dnsbl() */
+
+#define MT_NOT 1
+#define MT_ALL 2
+
+

   /*************************************************
   *          Retrieve a callout cache record       *
  @@ -2540,7 +2546,12 @@
                      reversed if IP address)
     iplist         the list of matching IP addresses, or NULL for "any"
     bitmask        true if bitmask matching is wanted
  -  invert_result  true if result to be inverted
  +  match_type     condition for 'succeed' result
  +                   0 => Any RR in iplist     (=)
  +                   1 => No RR in iplist      (!=)
  +                   2 => All RRs in iplist    (==)
  +                   3 => Some RRs not in iplist (!==)
  +                   the two bits are defined as MT_NOT and MT_ALL
     defer_return   what to return for a defer


   Returns:         OK if lookup succeeded
  @@ -2549,7 +2560,7 @@


   static int
   one_check_dnsbl(uschar *domain, uschar *domain_txt, uschar *keydomain,
  -  uschar *prepend, uschar *iplist, BOOL bitmask, BOOL invert_result,
  +  uschar *prepend, uschar *iplist, BOOL bitmask, int match_type,
     int defer_return)
   {
   dns_answer dnsa;
  @@ -2668,21 +2679,25 @@


     if (iplist != NULL)
       {
  -    int ipsep = ',';
  -    uschar ip[46];
  -    uschar *ptr = iplist;
  -
  -    while (string_nextinlist(&ptr, &ipsep, ip, sizeof(ip)) != NULL)
  +    for (da = cb->rhs; da != NULL; da = da->next)
         {
  +      int ipsep = ',';
  +      uschar ip[46];
  +      uschar *ptr = iplist;
  +      uschar *res;
  +
         /* Handle exact matching */
  +
         if (!bitmask)
           {
  -        for (da = cb->rhs; da != NULL; da = da->next)
  +        while ((res = string_nextinlist(&ptr, &ipsep, ip, sizeof(ip))) != NULL)
             {
             if (Ustrcmp(CS da->address, ip) == 0) break;
             }
           }
  +
         /* Handle bitmask matching */
  +
         else
           {
           int address[4];
  @@ -2695,37 +2710,60 @@
           ignore IPv6 addresses. The default mask is 0, which always matches.
           We change this only for IPv4 addresses in the list. */


  -        if (host_aton(ip, address) == 1) mask = address[0];
  +        if (host_aton(da->address, address) == 1) mask = address[0];


           /* Scan the returned addresses, skipping any that are IPv6 */


  -        for (da = cb->rhs; da != NULL; da = da->next)
  +        while ((res = string_nextinlist(&ptr, &ipsep, ip, sizeof(ip))) != NULL)
             {
  -          if (host_aton(da->address, address) != 1) continue;
  -          if ((address[0] & mask) == mask) break;
  +          if (host_aton(ip, address) != 1) continue;
  +          if ((address[0] & mask) == address[0]) break;
             }
           }


  -      /* Break out if a match has been found */
  +      /* If either
  +
  +         (a) An IP address in an any ('=') list matched, or
  +         (b) No IP address in an all ('==') list matched


  -      if (da != NULL) break;
  +      then we're done searching. */
  +
  +      if (((match_type & MT_ALL) != 0) == (res == NULL)) break;
         }


  -    /* If either
  +    /* If da == NULL, either


  -       (a) No IP address in a positive list matched, or
  -       (b) An IP address in a negative list did match
  +       (a) No IP address in an any ('=') list matched, or
  +       (b) An IP address in an all ('==') list didn't match


  -    then behave as if the DNSBL lookup had not succeeded, i.e. the host is
  -    not on the list. */
  +    so behave as if the DNSBL lookup had not succeeded, i.e. the host is not on
  +    the list. */


  -    if (invert_result != (da == NULL))
  +    if ((match_type == MT_NOT || match_type == MT_ALL) != (da == NULL))
         {
         HDEBUG(D_dnsbl)
           {
  +        uschar *res = NULL;
  +        switch(match_type)
  +          {
  +          case 0:
  +          res = US"was no match";
  +          break;
  +          case MT_NOT:
  +          res = US"was an exclude match";
  +          break;
  +          case MT_ALL:
  +          res = US"was an IP address that did not match";
  +          break;
  +          case MT_NOT|MT_ALL:
  +          res = US"were no IP addresses that did not match";
  +          break;
  +          }
           debug_printf("=> but we are not accepting this block class because\n");
  -        debug_printf("=> there was %s match for %c%s\n",
  -          invert_result? "an exclude":"no", bitmask? '&' : '=', iplist);
  +        debug_printf("=> there %s for %s%c%s\n",
  +          res,
  +          ((match_type & MT_ALL) == 0)? "" : "=",
  +          bitmask? '&' : '=', iplist);
           }
         return FAIL;
         }
  @@ -2739,7 +2777,7 @@


     if (domain_txt != domain)
       return one_check_dnsbl(domain_txt, domain_txt, keydomain, prepend, NULL,
  -      FALSE, invert_result, defer_return);
  +      FALSE, match_type, defer_return);


     /* If there is no alternate domain, look up a TXT record in the main domain
     if it has not previously been cached. */
  @@ -2852,7 +2890,6 @@
   {
   int sep = 0;
   int defer_return = FAIL;
  -BOOL invert_result = FALSE;
   uschar *list = *listptr;
   uschar *domain;
   uschar *s;
  @@ -2873,6 +2910,7 @@
     {
     int rc;
     BOOL bitmask = FALSE;
  +  int match_type = 0;
     uschar *domain_txt;
     uschar *comma;
     uschar *iplist;
  @@ -2899,8 +2937,8 @@
     if (key != NULL) *key++ = 0;


     /* See if there's a list of addresses supplied after the domain name. This is
  -  introduced by an = or a & character; if preceded by ! we invert the result.
  -  */
  +  introduced by an = or a & character; if preceded by = we require all matches
  +  and if preceded by ! we invert the result. */


     iplist = Ustrchr(domain, '=');
     if (iplist == NULL)
  @@ -2909,14 +2947,23 @@
       iplist = Ustrchr(domain, '&');
       }


  -  if (iplist != NULL)
  +  if (iplist != NULL)                          /* Found either = or & */
       {
  -    if (iplist > domain && iplist[-1] == '!')
  +    if (iplist > domain && iplist[-1] == '!')  /* Handle preceding ! */
         {
  -      invert_result = TRUE;
  +      match_type |= MT_NOT;
         iplist[-1] = 0;
         }
  -    *iplist++ = 0;
  +
  +    *iplist++ = 0;                             /* Terminate domain, move on */
  +
  +    /* If we found = (bitmask == FALSE), check for == or =& */
  +
  +    if (!bitmask && (*iplist == '=' || *iplist == '&'))
  +      {
  +      bitmask = *iplist++ == '&';
  +      match_type |= MT_ALL;
  +      }
       }


     /* If there is a comma in the domain, it indicates that a second domain for
  @@ -2967,7 +3014,7 @@
       if (sender_host_address == NULL) return FAIL;    /* can never match */
       if (revadd[0] == 0) invert_address(revadd, sender_host_address);
       rc = one_check_dnsbl(domain, domain_txt, sender_host_address, revadd,
  -      iplist, bitmask, invert_result, defer_return);
  +      iplist, bitmask, match_type, defer_return);
       if (rc == OK)
         {
         dnslist_domain = string_copy(domain_txt);
  @@ -3000,7 +3047,7 @@
           }


         rc = one_check_dnsbl(domain, domain_txt, keydomain, prepend, iplist,
  -        bitmask, invert_result, defer_return);
  +        bitmask, match_type, defer_return);


         if (rc == OK)
           {


  Index: 0139
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-test/confs/0139,v
  retrieving revision 1.2
  retrieving revision 1.3
  diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
  --- 0139    3 Oct 2006 15:11:22 -0000    1.2
  +++ 0139    17 Jan 2007 11:17:59 -0000    1.3
  @@ -13,12 +13,29 @@
   domainlist local_domains = exim.test.ex
   trusted_users = CALLER


+acl_smtp_helo = check_helo
acl_smtp_rcpt = check_recipient
acl_smtp_mail = check_mail
+acl_smtp_vrfy = check_vrfy

# ------ ACL ------

   begin acl
  +
  +check_helo:
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl2.test.ex!=127.0.0.3 : rbl3.test.ex=127.0.0.3
  +  accept
  +
  +check_vrfy:
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex=127.0.0.1
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex!=127.0.0.1
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex!=127.0.0.3
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex==127.0.0.1
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.1
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.3
  +  warn    dnslists = rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +  accept


   check_mail:
     warn    dnslists = rbl4.test.ex&0.0.0.6


  Index: 0139
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-test/scripts/0000-Basic/0139,v
  retrieving revision 1.2
  retrieving revision 1.3
  diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
  --- 0139    3 Oct 2006 15:11:22 -0000    1.2
  +++ 0139    17 Jan 2007 11:17:59 -0000    1.3
  @@ -32,4 +32,12 @@
   .
   quit
   ****
  +exim -bh V4NET.11.12.15
  +helo a.b
  +quit
  +****
  +exim -bh V4NET.13.13.2
  +vrfy a@b
  +quit
  +****
   no_msglog_check


  Index: 0139
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-test/stderr/0139,v
  retrieving revision 1.2
  retrieving revision 1.3
  diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
  --- 0139    3 Oct 2006 15:11:22 -0000    1.2
  +++ 0139    17 Jan 2007 11:17:59 -0000    1.3
  @@ -259,3 +259,104 @@
   >>> warn: condition test failed
   >>> processing "accept"
   >>> accept: condition test succeeded
  +>>> host in hosts_connection_nolog? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in host_lookup? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in host_reject_connection? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in sender_unqualified_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in recipient_unqualified_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in helo_verify_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in helo_try_verify_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in helo_accept_junk_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> a.b in helo_lookup_domains? no (end of list)
  +>>> using ACL "check_helo"
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl2.test.ex!=127.0.0.3 : rbl3.test.ex=127.0.0.3
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl2.test.ex!=127.0.0.3
  +>>> new DNS lookup for 15.12.11.V4NET.rbl2.test.ex
  +>>> DNS lookup for 15.12.11.V4NET.rbl2.test.ex failed
  +>>> => that means V4NET.11.12.15 is not listed at rbl2.test.ex
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl3.test.ex=127.0.0.3
  +>>> new DNS lookup for 15.12.11.V4NET.rbl3.test.ex
  +>>> DNS lookup for 15.12.11.V4NET.rbl3.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.3)
  +>>> => that means V4NET.11.12.15 is listed at rbl3.test.ex
  +>>> warn: condition test succeeded
  +>>> processing "accept"
  +>>> accept: condition test succeeded
  +>>> host in hosts_connection_nolog? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in host_lookup? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in host_reject_connection? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in sender_unqualified_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in recipient_unqualified_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in helo_verify_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in helo_try_verify_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in helo_accept_junk_hosts? no (option unset)
  +>>> host in smtp_accept_max_nonmail_hosts? yes (matched "*")
  +>>> using ACL "check_vrfy"
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex=127.0.0.1
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex=127.0.0.1
  +>>> new DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => that means V4NET.13.13.2 is listed at rbl.test.ex
  +>>> warn: condition test succeeded
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex!=127.0.0.1
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex!=127.0.0.1
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => but we are not accepting this block class because
  +>>> => there was an exclude match for =127.0.0.1
  +>>> warn: condition test failed
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex!=127.0.0.3
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex!=127.0.0.3
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => that means V4NET.13.13.2 is listed at rbl.test.ex
  +>>> warn: condition test succeeded
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex==127.0.0.1
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex==127.0.0.1
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => but we are not accepting this block class because
  +>>> => there was an IP address that did not match for ==127.0.0.1
  +>>> warn: condition test failed
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => that means V4NET.13.13.2 is listed at rbl.test.ex
  +>>> warn: condition test succeeded
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.1
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.1
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => that means V4NET.13.13.2 is listed at rbl.test.ex
  +>>> warn: condition test succeeded
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.3
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.3
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => that means V4NET.13.13.2 is listed at rbl.test.ex
  +>>> warn: condition test succeeded
  +>>> processing "warn"
  +>>> check dnslists = rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +>>> DNS list check: rbl.test.ex!==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +>>> using result of previous DNS lookup
  +>>> DNS lookup for 2.13.13.V4NET.rbl.test.ex succeeded (yielding 127.0.0.1, 127.0.0.2)
  +>>> => but we are not accepting this block class because
  +>>> => there were no IP addresses that did not match for ==127.0.0.1,127.0.0.2
  +>>> warn: condition test failed
  +>>> processing "accept"
  +>>> accept: condition test succeeded
  +>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  +>>> routing a@b
  +>>> calling system_aliases router
  +>>> system_aliases router declined for a@b
  +>>> a in "userx"? no (end of list)
  +>>> no more routers
  +LOG: VRFY failed for a@b H=[V4NET.13.13.2]


  Index: 0139
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/exim/exim-test/stdout/0139,v
  retrieving revision 1.2
  retrieving revision 1.3
  diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
  --- 0139    3 Oct 2006 15:11:22 -0000    1.2
  +++ 0139    17 Jan 2007 11:17:59 -0000    1.3
  @@ -50,3 +50,19 @@
   354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself
   250 OK id=10HmaX-0005vi-00
   221 the.local.host.name closing connection
  +
  +**** SMTP testing session as if from host V4NET.11.12.15
  +**** but without any ident (RFC 1413) callback.
  +**** This is not for real!
  +
  +220 the.local.host.name ESMTP Exim x.yz Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:44:33 +0000
  +250 the.local.host.name Hello a.b [V4NET.11.12.15]
  +221 the.local.host.name closing connection
  +
  +**** SMTP testing session as if from host V4NET.13.13.2
  +**** but without any ident (RFC 1413) callback.
  +**** This is not for real!
  +
  +220 the.local.host.name ESMTP Exim x.yz Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:44:33 +0000
  +550 <a@b> Unrouteable address
  +221 the.local.host.name closing connection