From owner-freebsd-questions Thu May 1 22:35:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA14280 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 22:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA14275 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 22:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id AAA14422; Fri, 2 May 1997 00:37:41 -0500 Received: from p75.mixcom.com(198.137.186.25) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma014416; Fri May 2 00:37:36 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970502003736.00729180@mixcom.com> X-Sender: sysop@mixcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 00:37:36 -0500 To: Robert Shady From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Problem Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 12:57 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Robert Shady wrote: >I've got a serious problem with *ANY* 3.0 snapshots. I've seen several >other people say in the mailing lists that they have experienced similar >problems, but I have yet to see a legitimate answer to them. PLEASE >respond asap. > >The problem: > In certain software packages, the gethostbyname call appears to fail. >The software: > (so far) sendmail, and harvest > >The scenario: > Webserver - Approximately 100 virtual hosts. Running nothing but YP > client, webservices, and sendmail with client (forward) configuration. --snip-- >Sendmail complains: >=================== >... >May 1 08:43:33 www001 sendmail[4405]: gethostbyaddr() failed for 199.125.2.95 >May 1 08:43:33 www001 sendmail[4405]: gethostbyaddr() failed for 199.125.2.96 >May 1 08:43:33 www001 sendmail[4405]: gethostbyaddr() failed for 199.125.2.97 >May 1 08:43:33 www001 sendmail[4405]: gethostbyaddr() failed for 199.125.2.98 >May 1 08:43:33 www001 sendmail[4405]: gethostbyaddr() failed for 199.125.2.99 --snip-- Ran into this myself (2.1.7 and 2.2.1) and don't consider having inverse for virtual hosts necessary. My concern was sendmail, so I hacked out the logging for now (ugly). Should go back later and look things over. Didn't like 600K of pertinent logging, but a total log of over 20Mb at one point. Only httpd should listen on the bound IPs for the virtual hosts. Nothing else. Either add inverse or hack the code. ------------------------------------------- Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator jeff@mixcom.net MIX Communications Serving the Internet since 1990