Re: 507 and distributed sendmail

From: Stuart J. Browne (stuart_at_promed.com.au)
Date: 11/28/03 

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:23:24 +1100

"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:Hp1qI1.1EFC@wjv.com...
> 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.

But there is a "FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')" which comes with
Sendmail to disable this.

> 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?

It's not a relaying issue. It's relaying where it should. It's just not
accepting when it should.

> 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.

Have a few times myself, usually to get around niggly issues.

> >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.

Unfortunately, they are all correct. But thanks for the ideas. ;)

bkx

Relevant Pages