From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan  9 14:02:25 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E27AE9;
 Wed,  9 Jan 2013 14:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from ume@mahoroba.org)
Received: from mail.mahoroba.org (ent.mahoroba.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:8010::1])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385E2E2;
 Wed,  9 Jan 2013 14:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from yuga.mahoroba.org (ume@yuga-m.mahoroba.org
 [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:8016:7258:12ff:fe22:d94b])
 (user=ume mech=DIGEST-MD5 bits=0)
 by mail.mahoroba.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP/inet6 id r09E24TS004759
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
 Wed, 9 Jan 2013 23:02:08 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from ume@mahoroba.org)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900
Message-ID: <yge1udufoa7.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org>
To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1
In-Reply-To: <20130109.073354.730245417155474512.hrs@allbsd.org>
References: <20130108151837.GF35868@acme.spoerlein.net>
 <50EC5922.5030600@boland.org>
 <20130108184051.GI35868@acme.spoerlein.net>
 <20130109.073354.730245417155474512.hrs@allbsd.org>
User-Agent: xcite1.60> Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6
 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-2022-JP-2?B?R29qGyQoRCtXGyhC?=) APEL/10.8
 Emacs/24.2 (i386-portbld-freebsd9.1) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 9.1-STABLE
X-PGP-Key: http://www.mahoroba.org/~ume/publickey.asc
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F00 0B9E 2164 70FC 6DC5  BF5F 04E9 F086 BF90 71FE
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
 (mail.mahoroba.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:8010::1]);
 Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:02:10 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at asuka.mahoroba.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on asuka.mahoroba.org
Cc: michiel@boland.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, uqs@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:02:25 -0000

Hi,

>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:33:54 +0900 (JST)
>>>>> Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> said:

hrs>  I think this just hides the problem.  If gshapiro@'s explanation is
hrs>  correct, no ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 address should be returned if the name
hrs>  resolution works fine...

I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past.  I read
RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are
returned 1st.  So, my past change might be bad thing. X-(
However, I'm still curious about use of AI_ALL in sendmail.  As far as
I read the source of sendmail briefly, it seems the usage doesn't
depend on AI_ALL.

Sincerely,

--
Hajimu UMEMOTO
ume@mahoroba.org  ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.mahoroba.org/~ume/