> I agree that the IPv6 IP's, bogus or otherwise, could cause a problem
> but that does not alter the fact that JAMES is throwing the exception
> (that is not getting caught), nor do I understand why JAMES was changed
> from a scheme that works fine
Because it didn't work fine. It had serious issues of its own that you just
weren't aware of, such as ignoring TTL for DNS records requiring a reboot if
a target domain changed IP address or a DNSRBL was updated.
As for the problem, the code you have from Microsoft is a beta. Hopefully
Microsoft will fix it. In the meantime, I had reported the problem to Brian
Wellington when we first noticed it, and we will likely trap the exception
in a future James update if there isn't a dnsjava update to accommodate it.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
