From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Dec 16 21: 6:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from hsalouserv1.hsacorp.net (208-247-171-50.hsacorp.net [208.247.171.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1A914D93 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:06:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jconner@enterit.com) Received: from jimhomecomp (24-216-177-226.hsacorp.net [24.216.177.226]) by hsalouserv1.hsacorp.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id YM3VVNFS; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:00:59 -0500 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991215235821.009f4610@mail.enterit.com> X-Sender: jconner@mail.enterit.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:06:58 -0500 To: Martin Welk , John From: Jim Conner Subject: Re: DNS Setup Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19991216060402.B87366@theatre.sax.de> References: <4.1.19991215230917.009e45a0@mail.udel.edu> <4.1.19991215230917.009e45a0@mail.udel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG See below... At 06:04 AM 12/16/99 +0100, Martin Welk wrote: >On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:12:34PM -0500, John wrote: > > > I have sendmail allowed in /etc/hosts.allow. I have mx records in all the ^^^^^^^^^^ Sendmail doesn't usually get wrapped with tcp_wrappers (ie /etc/hosts.[allow|deny]) so I don't think you need to worry about putting that in there. It would depend on how sendmail was compiled too (if it has the ability to use tcp_wrappers libs in the compilation) > > name databases. I have O'Reilly's sendmail book on order, and it should be > > here tomorrow :) Any other places I should start looking? Does DNS have to > > be expressly permitted in /etc/hosts.allow? This makes no sense since i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No. You don't normally run named from inetd so therefore tcp_wrappers will not normally be wrapping named. However, if named has a compilation argument that activated tcp_wrappers as a wrapper for it then it would be susceptible to /etc/hosts.allow. This is *only* if named was compiled with tcp_wrappers included. My thinking on that is that it doesn't even use tcp_wrappers at all (I never checked). Also, remember that tcp_wrappers is for tcp traffic only and not for udp (AFAIK, please correct me if Im wrong). So tcp_wrappers wouldn't be very effective for named anyway. > > can be pinged and looked up? > >Is sendmail running? > >Check, if you can reach sendmail from other hosts by with a telnet session >to your SMTP port (telnet your.hosts.fqdn [smtp|25]) and look if it doesn't >hear for you. > >Which recipients are test mails addresses to? For example, if you haven't >configured sendmail.cw properly, your host would be foo.bar.tlh, but you >it isn't reachable also as bar.tlh. > >OTOH, you say you get them back with ``host unknown'' - check for the >name server of the machine your sending from if it can resolve an MX >record for the host/domain part of your recipients address. Did you >wait long enough to let world know of your DNS entries? > >When you can reach the host foo.bar.tlh by IP but cannot direct mail >to it, it has often to do with DNS setup, otherwise your host would >have sent back that mail (what do those headers look like?) > >How did you specify the MX records in your zone configuration? > >For example, something like > >foo IN A a.b.c.d > IN MX 10 foo > >in a zone configuration for bar.tlh will resolve to MX record = >foo.bar.tlh, where > >foo IN A a.b.c.d > IN MX 10 foo.other.tlh > >would resolve to MX record = foo.other.tlh.bar.tlh, where > >foo IN A a.b.c.d > IN MX 10 foo.other.tlh. > >will do what you expect (MX = foo.other.tlh) - you see the difference? > >Regards, > >Martin >-- > /| /| | /| / ,,You know, there's a lot of opportunities, >/ |/ | artin |/ |/ elk if you're knowing to take them, > you know, there's a lot of opportunities, >Freiberg/Saxony, Germany if there aren't you can make them, >mw@sax.de / mw@theatre.sax.de make or break them!'' (Tennant/Lowe) > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Today's errors, in contrast: Windows - "Invalid page fault in module kernel32.dll at 0032:A16F2935" UNIX - "segmentation fault - core dumped" Humanous Beingsus - "OOPS, I've fallen and I can't get up" ------------------------------- Jim Conner NOTJames jconner@enterit.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message