Re: [SPAM-TAG] Further URIDNSBL problems..

[mouss <us...@free.fr>]

Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:22:24 AM, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> 
>>FYI (and for future list-searchers), the problem with URIDNSBL
>>appearing to work but not actually scoring was because the host's
>>resolv.conf included 127.0.0.1, which apparently something doesn't
>>like.
> 
> 
> One possibility is that some code has 127.0.0.1 as
> a "bad" address.  In particular this is one reason
> why RBLs usually don't list 127.0.0.1 as a result
> code, which could clearly break things where the
> loopback address appears in message headers, for
> example.  Just a WAG for someone to check in future.
> 
> Glad to hear you got things working!
> 
> Jeff C.

use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, or better, an IP of one of the 
physical interfaces. there seems to be a bug with sock_dgram code.

Re: [SPAM-TAG] Further URIDNSBL problems..

[mouss <us...@free.fr>]

Jeff Chan wrote:


> 
> Thanks for the feedback Matthew.  Mouss would you care to report
> the bug to Fedora, if you haven't already?  (It sounds like it
> was somewhat known already?)

I don't know much about it except, that the "old" bind docs say so.
See section 6.2 of the "BOG" 
(http://www.ccs.neu.edu/groups/systems/proj/DNS/bog.html for instance).

<excerpt BOG-sect-6.2>
Note that if you wish to list the local host in your resolver 
configuration file, you should probably use its primary Internet address 
rather than a localhost alias such as 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0. This is due 
to a bug in the handling of connected SOCK_DGRAM sockets in some 
versions of the BSD networking code. If you must use an address-alias, 
you should prefer 0.0.0.0 (or simply ``0'') over 127.0.0.1, though be 
warned that depending on the vintage of your BSD-derived networking 
code, both of them are capable of failing in their own ways.
</excerpt>

(Of course, "BSD" doesn't mean just the open-src *bsd here, as it 
applies to all OSes that used the BSD sockets code, and this includes a 
lot of systems)


regards,
mouss

Re: [SPAM-TAG] Further URIDNSBL problems..

[Kelson <ke...@speed.net>]

Jeff Chan wrote:
>>>Matthew
>>>Was the OS Fedora Core 1 for this bug?
>>>
>>>Mouss,
>>>If there's a bug would you please submit it to them?

FYI, Fedora Core 1 has already been EOL'ed.  They're currently providing 
fixes for FC2 and FC3, and FC2 will be dropped when the first FC4 beta 
is released.  Unless the bug is still in FC2 or FC3, the place to send 
the bug report would be the Fedora Legacy project, which is currently 
handling fixes for Red Hat 7.3 and 9, and Fedora Core 1.  (Fedora Legacy 
is focused mainly on security fixes, though.)

http://www.fedoralegacy.org/

-- 
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>

Re: [SPAM-TAG] Further URIDNSBL problems..

[Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>]

On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 10:27:21 PM, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:34:44 -0800, Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 4:52:53 PM, mouss mouss wrote:
>> > Jeff Chan wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:22:24 AM, Matthew Romanek wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>FYI (and for future list-searchers), the problem with URIDNSBL
>> >>>appearing to work but not actually scoring was because the host's
>> >>>resolv.conf included 127.0.0.1, which apparently something doesn't
>> >>>like.
>> 
>> > use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, or better, an IP of one of the
>> > physical interfaces. there seems to be a bug with sock_dgram code.
>> 
>> Matthew
>> Was the OS Fedora Core 1 for this bug?
>> 
>> Mouss,
>> If there's a bug would you please submit it to them?

> Indeed it was.

> However, the fix was fairly straight forward. There was an entry for
> 127.0.0.1 in the /etc/resolv.conf. When that was changed to the
> interface IP, everything started working again. It's been repro'd.
> Something just doesn't like using the loopback interface for DNS
> lookups.

Thanks for the feedback Matthew.  Mouss would you care to report
the bug to Fedora, if you haven't already?  (It sounds like it
was somewhat known already?)

Jeff C.
-- 
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/

Re: [SPAM-TAG] Further URIDNSBL problems..

[Matthew Romanek <sh...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:34:44 -0800, Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 4:52:53 PM, mouss mouss wrote:
> > Jeff Chan wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:22:24 AM, Matthew Romanek wrote:
> >>
> >>>FYI (and for future list-searchers), the problem with URIDNSBL
> >>>appearing to work but not actually scoring was because the host's
> >>>resolv.conf included 127.0.0.1, which apparently something doesn't
> >>>like.
> 
> > use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, or better, an IP of one of the
> > physical interfaces. there seems to be a bug with sock_dgram code.
> 
> Matthew
> Was the OS Fedora Core 1 for this bug?
> 
> Mouss,
> If there's a bug would you please submit it to them?
> 
> Jeff C.
> --
> Jeff Chan
> mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
> http://www.surbl.org/
> 
> 

Indeed it was.

However, the fix was fairly straight forward. There was an entry for
127.0.0.1 in the /etc/resolv.conf. When that was changed to the
interface IP, everything started working again. It's been repro'd.
Something just doesn't like using the loopback interface for DNS
lookups.

Re: [SPAM-TAG] Further URIDNSBL problems..

[Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>]

On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 4:52:53 PM, mouss mouss wrote:
> Jeff Chan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 8:22:24 AM, Matthew Romanek wrote:
>> 
>>>FYI (and for future list-searchers), the problem with URIDNSBL
>>>appearing to work but not actually scoring was because the host's
>>>resolv.conf included 127.0.0.1, which apparently something doesn't
>>>like.

> use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, or better, an IP of one of the 
> physical interfaces. there seems to be a bug with sock_dgram code.

Matthew
Was the OS Fedora Core 1 for this bug?

Mouss,
If there's a bug would you please submit it to them?

Jeff C.
-- 
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/