> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > No, that's not the reason. I just don't like getting cc's.
>
> That's easily fixed: I recommend /usr/ports/mail/procmail.
>
> You can't expect people on a mailing list to tailor their MUA
> configuration to suit your choices. It's up to you to set up your own
> MUA
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> No, that's not the reason. I just don't like getting cc's.
That's easily fixed: I recommend /usr/ports/mail/procmail.
You can't expect people on a mailing list to tailor their MUA
configuration to suit your choices. It's up to you to set up your own
MUA and filters to c
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-13 11:49:15 -0600:
> In the last episode (Jan 13), Roman Neuhauser said:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-12 21:33:32 -0800:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:46PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> > > > > To: R
In the last episode (Jan 13), Roman Neuhauser said:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-12 21:33:32 -0800:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:46PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> > > > To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTE
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-12 21:57:25 -0800:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:46PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> > > > To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > you sent
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-12 21:33:32 -0800:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:46PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> > > To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > you sent me a copy again, please, don't do
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:46PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> > > To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > you sent me a copy again, please, don't do it.
> > 1. I don't want o
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:48:46PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> > To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> you sent me a copy again, please, don't do it.
> 1. I don't want one, I'll read your message on the
thanks for not cc'ing me.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 15:18:43 -0800:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > > So, do you manually put "yahoo.com" SOA records in your DNS?
> >
> > no.
> >
> > > How do you answer requests for "yahoo.com".
> >
> > it's simple:
>
> [ ... "I have a DNS cach
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > So, do you manually put "yahoo.com" SOA records in your DNS?
>
> no.
>
> > How do you answer requests for "yahoo.com".
>
> it's simple:
[ ... "I have a DNS caching server that forwards all requests,
except those to "bellavista.cz"; for those, it does
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-10 11:32:22 -0800:
> To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you sent me a copy again, please, don't do it.
1. I don't want one, I'll read your message on the list.
2. it's futile: your provider's MTA breaks RFC 2821:
2.3.5:
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> You talked about nameservers and split horizon,
> I talked about nameservers and split horizon.
> Now you talk about Bind. Don't change the playground, please.
You weren't really talking about split horizon, I think; a
"horizon" in this case is any place you ca
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-09 12:48:03 -0800:
> To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
please don't cc me.
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > > ! This is called a "split horizon DNS", and you need to run two
> > > ! DNS servers, one interior, and one exterior, both authoritative
> > > ! for yo
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:07:19PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
! What are the precise contents of your /etc/resolv.conf?
search oper.dinoex.org
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 192.168.98.2
rgds,
PMc
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in
Peter Much wrote:
> ! 1)The default names option in the standard resolver will prevent
> ! another query for the unqualified name, since unqualified names
> ! are supposed to get the local domain name, unconditionally.
>
> I'm sorry, my named.log shows it the other way round - as d
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > ! This is called a "split horizon DNS", and you need to run two
> > ! DNS servers, one interior, and one exterior, both authoritative
> > ! for your domain, in order for this to work. The problem is that
> > ! you are forwarding a request that should be local, and you ar
! > Exactly. And when this is not found, then the resolver will
! > inplicitly issue another query for the unqualified name.
! >
! > And it is even worse with sendmail, because sendmail does quite
! > interesting things there - like switching off RES_DEFNAMES -
! > so this one will definitely not
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-06 17:36:52 +0100:
> ! > Background: This environment should be configured to use
> ! > an internet connection for internet-relevant things, but to
> ! > work flawlessly without such a connection as long as matters
> ! > do concern only systems within the LAN.
> !
> !
Peter Much wrote:
> ! So if I look up an unqualified "froboz", it's assumed to be in
> ! the local domain because of the DNS suffix every machine is using,
> ! and every machine is using it, either because you told it to, or
> ! because that's what the DHCP server told it to use, when it handed
> !
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:37:26PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
! > And now I do not think that a "split horizon" configuration could
! > solve my problem at all. Because if it could tell me that my
! > unqualified hostname does not exist (without querying the outside),
! > then it would also tell
Peter Much wrote:
> ! I have been told that BIND 9 can solve this problem with two
> ! different "views"; however, I do not believe it. I wrote a
> ! BCP RFC for this, which ended up not getting published, as I
> ! did not push it on the promise that the views would solve the
> ! problem, and arri
! > Background: This environment should be configured to use
! > an internet connection for internet-relevant things, but to
! > work flawlessly without such a connection as long as matters
! > do concern only systems within the LAN.
!
! This is called a "split horizon DNS", and you need to run tw
Peter Much wrote:
> 6. Then it asks the nameserver for the "" record of
>"gate-e.oper.dinoex.org" (which does not exist - the
>nameserver answers by sending the zonefile header (seems
>ok?). Then sendmail asks again for the "" record of
>"gate-e" (without domain). Now the lo
!
! Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote:
! > pmc> While it is true that the said sendmail-option solves the problem
! > pmc> (if sendmail is new enough to understand it), I could nowhere find
! > pmc> information on how to fix the bug in the nameserver - that is,
! > pmc> in the nameserver that is packaged
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003, Peter Much wrote:
> Attached is a log of what is happening actually, there
> are two systems "disp" and "gate" involved. "gate" is the
> mailhub, and "disp" wants to send a mail to it:
>
> Hostname: disp (127.0.0.1)gate (127.0.0.1)
> OS: Free
Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote:
> pmc> While it is true that the said sendmail-option solves the problem
> pmc> (if sendmail is new enough to understand it), I could nowhere find
> pmc> information on how to fix the bug in the nameserver - that is,
> pmc> in the nameserver that is packaged with FreeBSD
pmc> While it is true that the said sendmail-option solves the problem
pmc> (if sendmail is new enough to understand it), I could nowhere find
pmc> information on how to fix the bug in the nameserver - that is,
pmc> in the nameserver that is packaged with FreeBSD 4.4 or 4.7.
FreeBSD's nameserver i
Under certain circumstances, when sending mail, the mail will
appear in the local spool directory as
Deferred: Operation timed out with otherhost.domain
while observably there has no timeout happened: the sendmail
has returned just immediately from the failing delivery
action.
It is s
28 matches
Mail list logo
