[Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello! I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a good example. ---[Cut]--- [andris@strigidae scripts]$ host mail.tp.ru. mail.tp.ru has address 80.80.100.216 mail.tp.ru mail is handled (pri=5) by tp.aaanet.ru [andris@netgenic scripts]$ host tp.aaanet.ru. Host not found. ---[Cut]--- This means that any message sent to any address in mail.tp.ru domain will be bounced back to the originator with the following error: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Transcript of session follows - 550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: tp.aaanet.ru.: host not found) ---[Cut]--- In case you want anyone at mail.tp.ru host to be notified about this misconfiguration you should bypass the non-working MX record by using the following form of the e-mail address: mailbox@[80.80.100.216] Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses to the following form causing another bounce: ---[Cut]--- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 20:37:29 +0300 From: Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62e) Reply-To: Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: AerNet Ltd. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ Subject: mail.tp.ru MX record is invalid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ---[Cut]--- Testbed: Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 + post-SP2 hotfixes The Bat! Version 1.62e (Serial Number: 590E2F15) -- Yours sincerely, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) http://www.andris.msk.ru/ Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris), On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 21:14:26GMT +0300 (which was 1:14 PM in the tropics where I live) Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) postulated: AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address AGSAA directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a good example. 8 Snipped alot! Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm sure IP addresses are not rout-able as an e-mail recipient. I can't find the appropriate RFC, but I'm sure I read this somewhere. I just tried to send myself a message using my ISP's domain IP and it came back as; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unrouteable address Also the IP of the POP3 server came back; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unrouteable address IP specifics removed to prevent harvesting of data! The error returned in Andrey's message said; AGSAA- Transcript of session follows - AGSAA 550 5.1.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Host unknown (Name server: tp.aaanet.ru.: host not found) AGSAA ---[Cut]--- This indicates the DNS listing is in error or the domain doesn't exist. This is further supported by; AGSAA Subject: mail.tp.ru MX record is invalid Am I off base here? -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike Never trust a woman who tells you her real age; if she tells you that, she'll tell you anything. (Oscar Wilde) -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hallo Andrey, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:14:26 +0300GMT (5-2-03, 19:14 +0100, where I live), you wrote: AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP AGSAA address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a AGSAA good example. [192.168.203.12] isn't an ip-address. Leave the brackets and it'll do as you expected. So the address would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference is clear when you type the addresses in the editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is immediately underlined as a valid url mailbox@[192.168.203.12] is seen as plain text. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Roelof Otten wrote... AGSAA I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP AGSAA address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). Here is a AGSAA good example. [192.168.203.12] isn't an ip-address. Leave the brackets and it'll do as you expected. So the address would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference is clear when you type the addresses in the editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is immediately underlined as a valid url mailbox@[192.168.203.12] is seen as plain text. IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to working around issues such as DNS outages. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkFxoiuD6BT4/R9zEQLUJwCg68XP2Ey+KAPXkzP/hfCjd5bNDJYAoPoY m1XGHAc2bf2q017UVzn2OIz+ =oAx4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote... I have found a bug which prevents messages to be sent to an IP address directly (e.g. mailbox@[192.168.203.12]). [..] In case you want anyone at mail.tp.ru host to be notified about this misconfiguration you should bypass the non-working MX record by using the following form of the e-mail address: mailbox@[80.80.100.216] This is correct, yes. Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses to the following form causing another bounce: [..] To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived intact. The question is, what was the error message you got back from your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkFzXiuD6BT4/R9zEQLBZQCg+hSIiC21Q5A7ot2W3ipNmXP57FoAoPdJ gt3aCwyBaDBeF/KHpzqN17A9 =WLU4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Jonathan Angliss, On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 14:26:01GMT -0600 (which was 3:26 PM in the tropics where I live) Jonathan Angliss responded: JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails just JA fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail SMTP JA server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived intact. The JA question is, what was the error message you got back from your JA undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? OK, I stand (or sit!) corrected. I just tried it on ALL my mail accounts and they all responded NOT SENT: Domain litereals not allowed ;-( -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike And now for some feedback: EEE -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hallo Jonathan, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:18:38 -0600GMT (5-2-03, 21:18 +0100, where I live), you wrote: JA IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] JA otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in JA the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested JA AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to JA working around issues such as DNS outages. I stand corrected. They aren't mentioned in rfc2822 and I didn't check rfc2821 (where they are mentioned in sec 4.1.3) before I was rebuked. Without [] I got a test delivered and with I didn't, so I thought... -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Spike wrote... JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA intact. The question is, what was the error message you got back JA from your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even JA get one? OK, I stand (or sit!) corrected. I just tried it on ALL my mail accounts and they all responded NOT SENT: Domain litereals not allowed ;-( It could be they have the domain literals shut off. I believe it is possible with a bit of tweaking, and chances are, they probably do it for security reasons or something like that... but they are very useable, and are documented in the RFCs :) - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkF6KiuD6BT4/R9zEQJglACgrsA9DZvPwaLsfaj6EbJ0qgzFG+cAn2w8 3SntPE7S6kLbYj6e9W8wwT2h =kv4J -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello Roelof Otten, On or about Wednesday, February 05, 2003 at 21:41:18GMT +0100 (which was 3:41 PM in the tropics where I live) Roelof Otten ruminated: JA IP addresses in mailing addresses need to be encased in [ ] JA otherwise the mail doesn't send. They're called domain literals in JA the RFC (see RFC822 sec 6.2.3). They are strongly suggested JA AGAINST... but they should work. It is a temporary solution to JA working around issues such as DNS outages. RO I stand corrected. They aren't mentioned in rfc2822 and I didn't check RO rfc2821 (where they are mentioned in sec 4.1.3) before I was rebuked. RO Without [] I got a test delivered and with I didn't, so I thought... When I try it without the brackets, it gets rejected as 'not routeable' and when I try to send it with them, I get 'domain literals not allowed' and the mailer TO: line changes to; spike@[205\.214\.214\.80] Oh well, let's hope there are no DNS failures!! -- Warmest tropical wishes, Spike One way to better your lot is to do a lot better... -- /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail \ / If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail! / \ Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML). -- Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 -- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
Hello! Wed Feb 5 2003 23:26:01 Jonathan Angliss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the The Bat! converts such directly routed addresses to the following form causing another bounce: JA [..] To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA intact. Hmmm... it's interesting. Maybe your recent tries were successful because you're using an 1.63 Beta/5 version of the TB!. Mine was 1.62e and is 1.62i now. JA The question is, what was the error message you got back from your JA undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get one? Yes, here it is: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] - Transcript of session follows - 550 5.1.2 postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216]... Host unknown (Name server: [80\.80\.100\.216]: host not found) ---[Cut]--- The server is running Sendmail 8.12.6 under FreeBSD 4.7-Release. -- Yours sincerely, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) http://www.andris.msk.ru/ Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Bug] Couldn't mail to an IP address directly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, February 05, 2003, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote... To: postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] ^ JA I had noticed that it did this, but I just sent myself two emails JA just fine, one via a postfix SMTP server, and one via a sendmail JA SMTP server. Once each over telnet, and via TB!, all 4 arrived JA intact. Hmmm... it's interesting. Maybe your recent tries were successful because you're using an 1.63 Beta/5 version of the TB!. Mine was 1.62e and is 1.62i now. It could be that they fixed it... I cannot see anything in the beta files that mentions it, so it could have silently been fixed. So you are possibly quite correct. JA The question is, what was the error message you got back from JA your undelivered email to the literal address? Did you even get JA one? Yes, here it is: ---[Cut]--- - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - postmaster@[80\.80\.100\.216] [..] The server is running Sendmail 8.12.6 under FreeBSD 4.7-Release. - From a guess, TB! seems to want to put in the \ for some reason. Not sure why they'd do it, but they do... That clearly is killing the sending of the mail. Now... here is something odd... I just tested again with Sendmail, and managed to break it, it appeared to have added the \, but a retest on postfix found it worked just fine. So either postfix is stripping the \ in the [ ] or some oddities are going on somewhere between. As for how I got it to work with Sendmail the first time is something completely different. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPkGTWCuD6BT4/R9zEQIThgCghclb4IY5MRNtRO5gHh5bftbgAyEAnjSg KTnaSPOX06DDNJkpzSwljgrd =YdgF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
