2nd try: Port of Sendmail: response and comments

[Eric P. Scott]

In article <2844 at dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jim at jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov
	(Jim Jagielski) writes:
>My response is that I AM Internet connected, and compiling with
>NAMED_BIND undefined results in Sendmail working but compiling
>with NAMED_BIND defined results in Sendmail ONLY working if the
>host address is COMPLETELY spelled out (i.e. bar.gsfc.nasa.gov
>rather than just bar). Otherwise, mail is bounced with the 
>"unknown host" error.

What's in your /etc/resolv.conf file?  Is there a "domain"
line?  Which resolver library are you using?

>                      It also is no help to comment out the
>RES_DEFNAMES and RES_DNSRCH option setting... although it
>would result in the domain being attached to all single token
>hosts, sendmail would STILL refuse to recognize aliases in
>/etc/hosts either with or without named running.

You're missing an important point: all addresses in Internet mail
must go out with canonical names--no aliases!  At the very least
this means a DNS lookup to determine the proper name.  The place
for aliases isn't /etc/hosts--it's sendmail.cf or the mail user
agent.

>As far as the comment that the only sites who could use this version
>are those "running TCP/IP on a non-Internet-connected network", well,
>all I can do is repeat that I AM Internet connected. I do, however,
>handle by own mail and do require a gateway to get out of gsfc.nasa.gov.
>named is running...

If your problem is a firewall gateway, run [one of the rewer
versions of] BIND on the "red" side with the "forwarders" and
"slave" options in named.boot.  Then your hosts will have DNS
access even without direct IP connectivity to root nameservers.

>It does not good to say that "You MUST use MX records" if when
>sendmail is compiled to do so, it refuses to do what nameserving
>is supposed to do and when NOT using MX records (i.e. no getmxrr())
>then it DOES work. If you have any idea WHY it works out this way,
>let me know, but just sprouting dogma is no help. Comments are requested
>to help, not to inflate one's own ego on how much more you know about some-
>thing than someone else... have you looked at the code? Have you tried
>compiling and running it both ways? Do you have an CONSTRUCTIVE comments?

Have you read RFC 1123?  It specifies a STANDARD all Internet
sites must adhere to.

>Until then, I'll keep on distributing the port as is. People
>can compiled both with or without NAMED_BIND defined, but I
>would appreciate feedback on the difference encountered both ways.

sendmail is a critical piece of software for many sites; many of
the people who will run it know even less about these issues than
you do.  If you are willfully distributing versions that violate
standards (except as "experimental software") you are probably
doing the net a grave disservice, as it is those standards that
keep the net functional despite its enormous size.

hosts files work on isolated LANs with at most a few dozen
similar machines under the same administrative control.  For most
of us, it is an inadequate (and often counterproductive)
solution.

					-=EPS=-