Bob Proulx:
> Today I upgraded a machine from the older 2.7.x series to the latest
> 2.8.1 and found a difference. This is from Debian Sid.
Please, review the RELEASE_NOTES file and look for the
section titled "Major changes - dns lookup.
If this file is not installed please complain to the
maintainer.
I'm sure you will appreciate the great effort that goes
into documenting Postfix.
Wietse
> My previous relayhost configuration was:
>
> $ postconf relayhost
> relayhost = [mail]
>
> $ host -t a mail
> mail.proulx.com has address 192.168.9.3
>
> $ cat /etc/resolv.conf
> nameserver 127.0.0.1
> search proulx.com
>
> That configuration has been working for quite a few years. But in
> version 2.8.1 from Debian Sid I see that short host names without a
> domain name are no longer resolved.
>
> -Queue ID- --Size-- ----Arrival Time---- -Sender/Recipient-------
> 81CB02DC4D 1313 Wed Feb 23 13:22:36 [email protected]
> (Host or domain name not found. Name service error for name=mail type=A:
> Host not found)
> [email protected]
>
> Feb 23 13:22:36 hysteria postfix/smtp[18670]: warning: relayhost
> configuration problem
>
> Of course changing the relayhost to be any of the following corrects
> the problem. (The last one "[mail.$mydomain]" is fine for me.)
>
> relayhost = [192.168.230.3]
> relayhost = [mail.proulx.com]
> relayhost = [mail.$mydomain]
>
> I browsed the changelogs and release notes but didn't see anything
> that seemed to specifically address this topic.
>
> The documentation says:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#relayhost
>
> On an intranet, specify the organizational domain name. If your
> internal DNS uses no MX records, specify the name of the intranet
> gateway host instead.
>
> In the case of SMTP, specify a domain name, hostname, hostname:port,
> [hostname]:port, [hostaddress] or [hostaddress]:port. The form
> [hostname] turns off MX lookups.
>
> Examples:
> relayhost = $mydomain
> relayhost = [gateway.example.com]
> relayhost = uucphost
> relayhost = [an.ip.add.ress]
>
> Of course neither of the examples are short names and the words used
> in the description don't say either. It has worked before. (shrug)
>
> Is this an intentional change? Or just something that slipped in?
>
> I am fine with it being an intentional change. But it had always
> worked previously, I didn't find any explicit documentation of the
> change, and so here I am asking for a clarification of intent.
>
> Thanks!
> Bob
>
>
