From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 27 10:32:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from diablo.peritek.com (diablo.peritek.com [198.151.249.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C216E14F02 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:32:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ibjoe@home.com) Received: from neptune (neptune [198.151.249.84]) by diablo.peritek.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA00211; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: ibjoe@home.com X-Envelope-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: <2.2.32.19991027173141.01677368@netmail.home.com> X-Sender: ibjoe@netmail.home.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:31:41 -0700 To: Ruslan Ermilov From: Joe Bo Subject: Re: Connection attempt to UDP 127.0.0.1:512 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi Ruslan, Nice to hear from you again. At 09:51 AM 10/27/99 +0300, you wrote: >That's the problem. You have `net.inet.udp.log_in_vain=1', but nothing >is "listening" on port 512. Strange, that you see this only at 2:15am. >You should see this every time you execute `echo test | mail $USER'. >Don't you? Yes I do. I never noticed before because I usually do email from a W95 machine, not FreeBSD. >> I notice in rc.firewall we have: >> >> # Only in rare cases do you want to change these rules >> $fwcmd add 100 pass all from any to any via lo0 >> $fwcmd add 200 deny log all from any to 127.0.0.0/8 >> >> Could this be the problem? I don't really understand lo0 and 127... >No, the above problem has nothing to do with ipfirewall(4) at all. >The rules above tell the firewall to pass all traffic going through >the lo0 (loopback) interface (1st rule), but everything else with >the loopback network destination (127.0.0.0/8) should be denied and >logged. Thanks for the explantion. >> resolv.conf has one line: >> nameserver 127.0.0.1 >This is equivalent to an empty resolv.conf file, the nameserver IP >address is 127.0.0.1 by default. So I could delete this file with no effects. But since it doesn't make any difference (does it?) I'll leave it alone? >> I don't enable the sendmail daemon. >But this does not mean that sendmail(8) is not used. Whenever you >run mail(1) (or any other MUA), the sendmail(8) is invoked to actually >deliver the mail to the recipient, and if the recipient is a local user, >sendmail(8) sends a message to the comsat(8) server to notify user about >message arrival. If comsat(8) server is not running, and you have >`log_in_vain' set to 1, you will see `Connection attempt' message from >the kernel. Oh! Enabling the comsat server fixed the problem! Thanks! >Cheers, >-- >Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA of the >ru@ucb.crimea.ua United Commercial Bank, >ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, >+380.652.247.647 Simferopol, Ukraine > >http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve >http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age Thanks, Joe Bo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message