On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Oliver Heesakkers
<exim4@???> wrote:
> Op vr 24 feb 2012 11:22:31 schreef John Jetmore:
>>
>> To state simply before this wall of text, I believe that in practice
>> the presence of any AAAA record, in any MX host, will cause only AAAA
>> records to be considered for use.
>
> That's not what I'm seeing.
>
> $ exim -bt foobar@???
> foobar@???
> router = dnslookup, transport = remote_smtp
> host mx1.heesakkers.org [176.56.224.77] MX=10
> host server5.ohos.nl [2a01:7c8:aaaa:49::1] MX=20
> host server5.ohos.nl [141.138.139.185] MX=20
>
>>
>> Here are my tests:
>>
>
> You appear to have used non-existant or local-only adresses, this makes it
> impossible for us to validate your tests.
>
> $ host mx-both.jetmore.net
> Host mx-both.jetmore.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> $ host mx-ipv4.jetmore.net
> Host mx-ipv4.jetmore.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Yes (local view of the zone), but as it turns out that wasn't strictly
relevant. I noticed this behavior with an (unconfigured, packaged)
exim build on a test server. I tried to do due diligence by
rebuilding the latest version from scratch and using a stock config.
However, looking at the commands I sent in my test output, I see a
distinct lack of "./" in front of those exim commands. With that
fixed, it very much does work with the clean install:
jetmore@lappy:~/dev/exim-local/bin$ ./exim -bt foo@???
foo@???
router = dnslookup, transport = remote_smtp
host mx-both.jetmore.net [fc00::c0a8:29] MX=0
host mx-both.jetmore.net [192.168.0.41] MX=0
host mx-ipv6.jetmore.net [fc00::c0a8:74] MX=6
host g3.jetmore.net [192.168.0.4] MX=10
The problem with the test server's distribution install was my local
ipv4 network being in ignore_target_hosts. Sorry for the noise,
thanks for taking the time to respond.
--John
