Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:27:29 -0400 From: Gerard Seibert <gerard@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: very slow boot (newbie) Message-ID: <20060513172622.F3A7.GERARD@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: <20060513204032.GA51338@catflap.slightlystrange.org> References: <44662536.4080700@waywood.co.uk> <20060513204032.GA51338@catflap.slightlystrange.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Bye wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 07:28:06PM +0100, Barnaby Scott wrote: > > It turns out it was sendmail causing the delay, so now my /etc/rc.comf > > reads: > > > > sendmail_enable="NONE" > > This is fine, but according to rc.sendmail(8) `NONE' is deprecated and > will be removed in a future release (but, to be honest, it's been going > to be removed in a future release for quite some time now... ;-). It's > more typing, but the preferred way to disable sendmail these days is > this: > > sendmail_enable="NO" > sendmail_submit_enable="NO" > sendmail_outbound_enable="NO" > sendmail_msp_queue_enable="NO" > > This prevents any of the various sendmail daemons from starting. In that case, what handles the delivery of mail locally? > > > ...it does not cure the problem for me if I decide that I do want > > sendmail! I could cross that bridge when I come to it, but I would > > prefer to gain some insight here if anyone can bear any more on this topic. > > I would suggest you look at ssmtp in the ports. It is a very simple > mail forwarding daemon, that you configure with the IP address of another, > full MTA to which ssmtp will send all your outgoing messages. Your ISP > probably runs a suitable server for their customers' use. It means you > won't have to worry about your IP address and DNS resolution and all the > other things that go with running a full MTA, like sendmail, exim or > postfix. > > > > > Adding > > 127.0.0.1 frankbruno > > to /etc/hosts did not cure the problem. Could that be because the lookup > > that causes the delay is a reverse one? If so, it would be trying to > > find a name for 192.168.0.4 (I think that's the one I have been getting > > recently) which is still not in hosts. > > No, it wouldn't help at all - you should return that entry to localhost. > > > I would rather not mess with the IP allocation if possible - having it > > automatic is much more useful and means I cannot create condradictory > > records in different places. > > Fair enough. KDK's suggestion of using a wrapper script will certainly > get you round this if you decide you need/want to use a more full- > featured MTA. > > Dan > > -- > Daniel Bye
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060513172622.F3A7.GERARD>