Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Gary W. Swearingen
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's ugly, but try adding: > > 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 localhost > localhost.localdomain That actually "fixed" it, but maybe for the wrong reason. I restarted my sendmail daemons for no good reason after changin

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Gary W. Swearingen
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: [...] > From my personal experience, DSL and cable modems are also transient > connections. 8-(. I've had real good service from both (in a hardware sense -- but at every "change of state" (initiated by me), their people wo

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Gary W. Swearingen
Gregory Neil Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > swear> BTW, I was suprised to find several help files only under /usr/src > swear> and the Sendmail Installation and Operation only under that and not > swear> yet built from the source "op.me". (PR worthy?) > > op.me is built and installed in /

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, > On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 12:47:29 -0800 > Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: tlambert2> The FreeBSD library bug is that the /etc/hosts file entry: tlambert2> ::1 tlambert2> is not canonized before being compared, for the reverse lookup. No, it does. I've tested it with foll

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Terry Lambert
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > You're kludge breaks as soon as the submitting machine is not the > > server machine (i.e. you start making MSP connections over your > > local network). > > My ISP charges more for an Internet-connected LAN and I have no need for > one, so I don't bother. This bri

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Terry Lambert
Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > The latest FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE /etc/namedb/named.conf contains: > > // RFC 3152 > zone "1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA" { > type master; > file "localhost-v6.rev"; > }; > > // RFC 1886 -- deprecated > zone "1.0

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Gary W. Swearingen
[Dang; I meant to move this thread to -questions only, not -current.] Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [ There is a genuine FreeBSD bug or two at the root of your problem ] > > "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > > BTW, I was suprised to find several help files only > > under /usr/src a

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Gregory Neil Shapiro
swear> BTW, I was suprised to find several help files only under /usr/src swear> and the Sendmail Installation and Operation only under that and not swear> yet built from the source "op.me". (PR worthy?) op.me is built and installed in /usr/share/doc/smm/08.sendmailop/. cf/README is installed as

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-04 Thread Terry Lambert
[ There is a genuine FreeBSD bug or two at the root of your problem ] "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > I guess you're saying IPv6 is a "sendmail" default and not a OS default; > "ping localhost" says it's pinging "127.0.0.1", not "::1". Ping is ICMP echo datagrams; it requires a different ping for I

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-03 Thread Gary W. Swearingen
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The book is pretty useless. The reason the fix you are using > works is because you have an IPv6 connection by default, and by > explicitly specifying an IPv4 address, IPv4 is used. > > The issue here is the .in-addr.arpa. delegation for localhost > is

Re: [resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-03 Thread Terry Lambert
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > Thanks. I tried that and some other things (eg service.switch). Even > read the book and help files some more. Terry's suggestion regarding > "expensive" seemed like the opposite of what I needed (I was trying to > keep the msg out of the queues) and I had no luck t

[resolution] Re: sendmail (Re: 5.0-RC2 informal PR: 90 sec sendmail delay)

2003-01-03 Thread Gary W. Swearingen
(cc'd to -questions, where I first post my problem, with no luck) Valentin Nechayev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I fix it with: > define(`confDIRECT_SUBMISSION_MODIFIERS',`CC u')dnl > For now I has no such problem at my home machine. > Yes, this solution isn't intuitive. Thanks. I tried that a