Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:17:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Resolver broken? [Was:nfs startup - perhaps it is a problem] Message-ID: <199709151917.MAA24601@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <19970915165338.14706@lemis.com> from "Greg Lehey" at Sep 15, 97 04:53:38 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I've once noticed that this did indeed help, yes. But in my case it
> > was sendmail that complained it didn't find the onw host. I forgot
> > the details, but i think the /etc/hosts part of the resolver library
> > is broken with this. Ah, yes, i remember: sendmail apparently tries
> > to lookup "${hostname}.", i.e. it calls gethostname(2), and appends a
> > dot to force DNS to not use the search order. The /etc/hosts part of
> > the resolver library cannot handle this unless the host is listed with
> > the trailing dot in /etc/hosts. I think this is a bug, and this part
> > of the resolver library should just remove a trailing dot, to be
> > (bug-)compatible to the DNS part.
>
> Been there, done that. I'd categorize this as a sendmail bug,
> however. There's nothing in the /etc/hosts world which suggests that
> a . at the end of a name is legal.
I agree that it's the resolver library that's broken, not sendmail.
The sendmail program is attempting a perfectly legal thing: it does not
want the local domain added to the fully qualified host name. It is
up to the resolver library to provide the transparency this requires.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709151917.MAA24601>