Norman Maurer (JIRA) ha scritto:
>      [ 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-787?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
>  ]
> 
> Norman Maurer updated JAMES-787:
> --------------------------------
> 
>     Attachment: localResolv-2.3.diff
> 
> This is the diff for backporting to 2.3 branch . Any thoughts ?

I'm not sure this is critical enough to justify a 2.3 backport.

In the old "next-major" roadmap we even excluded the bug from the
next-major roadmap as a sign we could live with it. Also when planning
2.3 release (30/Jun/06) we voted to exclude JAMES-302 from the release.

On trunk the fix for this issue is much better (and clean) and I like
it. I appreciate the choice to use the useLocalResolv configuration
parameter to enable the fix (this ensure backward compatibility).

Considering this "weird behavior" is there since 2.2.0 and that it was a
known issue at release time I'm -0 on backporting this to v2.3 branch.

Maybe Noel's next-minor could be a better candidate for a full
dnsservice backport.

Stefano

>> Unable to resolv 127.0.0.1/localhost  [was: Fetchmail not use 127.0.0.1 as 
>> RemoteAddress when using index=-1]
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                 Key: JAMES-787
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-787
>>             Project: James
>>          Issue Type: Bug
>>          Components: FetchMail
>>    Affects Versions: 2.2.0, 2.3.0
>>            Reporter: Norman Maurer
>>         Assigned To: Norman Maurer
>>             Fix For: 2.3.2
>>
>>         Attachments: localResolv-2.3.diff
>>
>>
>> From ml:
>> We tried to fetch emails via POP3 from a Exchange 2003 server which
>> are sent from one local exchange account to an other local exchange
>> account. Fetchmail stopped parsing the message because the ip is missing
>> in the received header of the emails. Even if i use -1 as index the same
>> happen. That seems to be a bug for me .. Should it not just use
>> "127.0.0.1" and not try to parse it ? After adding a workarround which
>> catch the UnknownHostexception and add "127.0.0.1" this is solved.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to