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 IPv6

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 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 and the

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

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 brings to

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 following program:

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 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 would

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 changing

[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 and

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 trying

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