Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 15 May 2007 18:06:00 +0200
From:      "Ernest Sales" <>
To:        <>
Cc:        'Jeffrey Goldberg' <>
Subject:   RE: sendmail init error: Can't assign requested address
Message-ID:  <000201c7970a$ef8d4af0$2101a8c0@asinusaureus>
In-Reply-To: <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:24 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:

> On May 14, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Ernest Sales wrote:
> > Well, actually not so (sendmail_outbound_enable is supposed to be
> > set to
> > YES, as per defaults, but init says otherwise -- and I don't know
> > what that
> > means). But it starts without delays and can send/receive mail (even
> > internet mail, wow!).
> Take a look at /etc/defaults/rc.conf for all of the gory details.
> You probably meant sendmail_enable=YES, but:
> # Settings for /etc/rc.sendmail and /etc/rc.d/sendmail:
> sendmail_enable="NO"    # Run the sendmail inbound daemon (YES/NO).
> sendmail_pidfile="/var/run/"        # sendmail pid file
> sendmail_procname="/usr/sbin/sendmail"          # sendmail
> process name
> sendmail_flags="-L sm-mta -bd -q30m" # Flags to sendmail (as a server)
> sendmail_submit_enable="YES"    # Start a localhost-only MTA
> for mail
> submission
> sendmail_submit_flags="-L sm-mta -bd -q30m -
> ODaemonPortOptions=Addr=localhost"
>                                  # Flags for localhost-only MTA
> sendmail_outbound_enable="YES"  # Dequeue stuck mail (YES/NO).
> sendmail_outbound_flags="-L sm-queue -q30m" # Flags to sendmail
> (outbound only)
> sendmail_msp_queue_enable="YES" # Dequeue stuck clientmqueue mail
> (YES/NO).
> sendmail_msp_queue_flags="-L sm-msp-queue -Ac -q30m"
>                                  # Flags for
> sendmail_msp_queue daemon.

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

> > I chose .localhost to qualify the hostname because the notion of
> > "public"
> > domain name is where I get lost. Can I pick any word as TLD/SLD to
> > operate
> > in a private LAN?
> Yes, but using a local domain which conflicts with existing domains
> is strongly not recommended.  Consider what happens if a
> local config
> issue bounces email or worse to somebody else, or consider what
> happens if you chose ".net" or ".com" instead of ".localhost".
> > 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.

> > Researchs led me to RFC 2606, alternative DNS
> > roots, and the like, but I couldn't distill any practical advice.
> > Which will
> > be the interactions if I choose e.g. Now
> if I send
> > a mail
> > to the internet, it has a From field (user@hostname) unusable to
> > reply to;
> > if this was it could fake some
> real mail
> > address.
> Yes, absolutely, or to bounce email back to the example domain.
> Network admins get cross when you pretend to be in a domain that you
> have no affiliation with and they have to get your ISP to clean up
> after you....  :-)
> --
> -Chuck



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <$ef8d4af0$2101a8c0>