From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 17 07:16:03 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B4216A400 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 07:16:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ersaloz@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C84413C448 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 07:16:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ersaloz@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 71so232394ugh for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 00:16:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:importance:in-reply-to:x-mimeole; b=mUbcls3Ydc013lizRl7o1jk+MN1pl6HFZCq4tZrB1gALJ1MP7rs9zC5n0SXGBSreMVywF5PDHbnRFKGR+B5+oHfLmBwYnKJdQE9j/+PbgHwKQWo1Vf1WoA/Qy6O/JDi1fR9nFTHQguTw/+SgAqXT6a1wMMbJyTf42H5CXmG68gw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:importance:in-reply-to:x-mimeole; b=QNT4lKBocEo9eYn8l0hGO8iuWDmffmxaV+Bj8kGGpl49NqiN1ORWNN1a39LSA48S+04X8ZOtEua3OCRmLFq5io9OHDva/0+HBMx/nAwSii4ObqTu7hR7LxIDWZ0HmMlpPM/fZs/DOW2WVmSsbOmBS0t3ylK7ifhZURwk71s0moo= Received: by 10.66.219.11 with SMTP id r11mr80426ugg.1179386161549; Thu, 17 May 2007 00:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asinusaureus ( [81.35.214.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j2sm75412mue.2007.05.17.00.15.52; Thu, 17 May 2007 00:15:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ernest Sales" To: Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:15:48 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c79853$3726b6a0$2101a8c0@asinusaureus> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7C73E4FC-C59B-45DA-858F-6CBB52A7E168@mac.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Cc: 'Jeffrey Goldberg' Subject: RE: sendmail init error: Can't assign requested address X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:16:03 -0000 On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:29 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On May 15, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Ernest Sales wrote: > [ ... ] > > Honestly, I don't understand what each of this four daemons is > > supposed > > to do. I just want the minimal working sendmail config in a NATed > > host, > > the /etc/defaults/rc.conf reads as your sample, and init says > > sendmail_outbound_enable is set to NO, which seems odd but dunno the > > consequences. > > There are only two daemons, actually: the MTA, and the client mqueue > runner. > > The separation was made because sendmail used to run as a single, > setuid-root executable, and has had a rather infamous security > history as a consequence. If you want sendmail to be running and > listening on port 25 as a MTA, you need to set the sendmail_enable/ > sendmail_outbound_enable to YES. > > [ ... ] > >>> Is there any standard, anything like the CIDR blocks reserved for > >>> private networks? > >> > >> The zeroconf/rendezvous stuff likes to use ".local" as the domain > >> unless other info is available. > > > > Cool. Tried .local and works too. Looks like sendmail is happy with > > finding 'dot anything' after the hostname. So far, my problem is > > fixed. > > But the init behavior for unqualified hostnames is less > than optimal: > > having to wait one minute until sendmail agrees --and it finally > > agrees-- is annoying; and this happens for every sendmail daemon > > launch. > > As more end-users using PCs without FQDN jump to FreeBSD > this could be > > more heard of. Wonder if filing a PR; comments welcome. > > The standard period for a DNS timeout is anywhere up to about two > minutes, depending on how many resolvers are configured in /etc/ > resolv.conf. It's possible to tell sendmail not to use DNS, and > avoid this timeout, but normally people run mailservers only on > machines with working DNS and a sensible hostname. This > isn't a bug, > it's just an assumption that sendmail makes which is typically > appropriate, but not for the case of a random client machine without > working DNS.... A broader point of view. OK, I forget about PR. Thanks. Ernest > > -- > -Chuck >