Re: 507 and distributed sendmail
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 11/28/03
- Previous message: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- In reply to: Stuart J. Browne: "507 and distributed sendmail"
- Next in thread: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Reply: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:25:00 GMT
In article <3fc69881$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Stuart J. Browne <stuart@promed.com.au> wrote:
>Howdy..
>Well, 507's distribution of sendmail is just broken. Fun really ;)
>Some things to note:
>Out of the box, it won't accept unresolvable domains. If the
>machine is not on the internet, this causes issues.
Thats part of Sendmail itself - and the assumption is most
machine are on the internet.
Since it's not on the internet am I correct in assuming these
are local domains/IPs. If so have you put the IP or IP block
in 'access' file with the word RELAY?
I do that on a 'net conneted Sendmail install for a client with IPs
on a T1 where there providers doesn't not resolve the address.
>Out of the box, it has the 'smrsh' feature enabled. SCO doesn't ship
>'/usr/lib/smrsh' of which the configuration requires.
>The necessary 'm4' files to change these in a 'nice' fashion are
>also not shipped.
>Simply put, sendmail is unusable out-of-the-box on a SCO 507 machine.
Because of security it is much tighter. I've seen instances where
it didn't want to run because it could not resolve it's own name
because it was not in hosts properly. This was in a non-SCO
environment.
>Is there something I'm missing, either from the install media,
>or some download somwhere which I can't find (short of sendmail
>source, and re-compilation) that will provide the ability to get
>it working (without resorting to manually hacking the CF file) ?
If everything referenced is not in hosts and you have the proper
entries in access - I don't know. But check those.
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Previous message: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- In reply to: Stuart J. Browne: "507 and distributed sendmail"
- Next in thread: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Reply: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|