Re: 507 and distributed sendmail
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 11/28/03
- Previous message: Bob Bailin: "Re: Not all output is redirected"
- In reply to: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Next in thread: Boyd Gerber: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:05:01 GMT
In article <3fc6e9d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Stuart J. Browne <stuart@promed.com.au> wrote:
>
>"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 just performed 'glimpse' on my source tree and I do see
the m4 you are refering too. I see that this had been around since
sendmail 9.? - so I wonder why that if this was included in the
older versions why it's not in the current versions. Oversight?
Bill
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Previous message: Bob Bailin: "Re: Not all output is redirected"
- In reply to: Stuart J. Browne: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Next in thread: Boyd Gerber: "Re: 507 and distributed sendmail"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
