From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2007 - 19:55:00 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:43:04PM -0600, Travis H. wrote:

> > > I assume this has to do with the way recv(2) and send(2) were
> > > implemented in the socket API, but my OS states that recv(2) is
> > > normally used only on a connected socket.
> >
> > No, it has to do with UDP applications that were not written with
> > multi-homed hosts in mind and don't bind to each interface separately.
>
> Same thing as I was getting at; the fact that UDP is not connected
> means that you can't send a reply out to the original request from
> the same socket because UDP doesn't assume a request/reply, so it
> doesn't hold any state around that you could use to assure the same
> IP.

No, not the same thing, because you can bind a UDP socket to an
IP address, even though it is connectionless... Anyway this
was not the OPs problem, which is all that matters. Over and out.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]