> -----Original Message----- > From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 December 2003 17:11 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: Regarding BUG 24885: RemoteDelivery only tries > one of multiple A record > > > Søren Hilmer wrote: > > rawDNSLookup needs to be called twice. I am adding a > > DNSServer.findARecords method to do it > > Why not use InetAddress.getAllByName(String host)? It will > get all of the IP addresses associated with the host. > > > On Friday 05 December 2003 16:30, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > The return is a Collection of String objects. Each one > is currently > > > of > the > > > form "host", but if we were to handle multi-homed hosts by using > "host/IP", > > > it seems to me that we could either parse it directly, or > change the > > > way > we > > > construct the URLName. > > > Yes, I also thought of this, but this is a change to the > functionality > > of MailetContext, so it will break backwards compatibility. > Adding a > > new method will not. > > So, the problem is that the existing method is not doing what > we want, and you are concerned that there might be third > party code relying upon that method, which is fair enough and > a good point. > > In fact, I am curious to know what Jason Webb's company is > doing in this area, since they have a custom delivery mailet, > if I recall correctly. We do, but we cheat. All our customers so far insist we use their gateways. :( All we do is directly insert outbound items directly into the outbound spool, so nothing clever really. In our hosted setup we offload transmission to a big Qmail box which sorts out these problems for us. > > Unfortunately, I cannot think of a good way to fix the > current method without losing the host name in the log. > However, it might be a good idea to fix the existing method, > anyway, even though it would change the log output. Improved > functionality at the expense of the host name in the log. > Someone using the current method would see the IP addresses > in the log instead of the host name, unless they change their > code to look it up. > > What do you propose for the new method signature and return type? > > --- Noel > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
