From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 18:11:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDC11065672 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:11:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) Received: from sysmon.tcworks.net (sysmon.tcworks.net [65.66.76.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C248FC13 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:11:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) Received: from sysmon.tcworks.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sysmon.tcworks.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m24IBUWf075688 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:11:30 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) Received: (from lambert@localhost) by sysmon.tcworks.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m24IBUWC075687 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:11:30 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) X-Authentication-Warning: sysmon.tcworks.net: lambert set sender to lambert@lambertfam.org using -f Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:11:30 -0600 From: Scott Lambert To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080304181130.GA66467@sysmon.tcworks.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <200803040619.m246Jbja018523@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080304000320.msp5bfrytc0wsowg@webmail.1command.com> <20080304095246.GA77655@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20080304022321.kjxdx6oo0gkkwck8@webmail.1command.com> <20080304105448.GA84355@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20080304032200.zydn8p7688ss00g0@webmail.1command.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080304032200.zydn8p7688ss00g0@webmail.1command.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Subject: Re: What's new on the 127.0.0/24 block in 7? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:11:31 -0000 On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:00AM -0800, Chris H. wrote: > No. It's not a matter of "holding back". I really don't want to spam > the stable list with ports litter. My main concern/question was in > figuring out why 2 identical server configs would react so differently > in the way they handle lo0 and friends - rbldnsd, or no rbldnsd. Have you recently diffed the actual running config files? From the sidelines, it sounds like a change may have been made and forgotten, or made by another admin which could be causing issues. I know that often when I start thinking, "Nothing is different the software is broken!" something is different. Important files off the top of my head: /etc/defaults/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf /etc/rc.local /etc/namedb/named.conf (and friends) /usr/local/etc/whatever_rbldnsd_uses pkg_info | egrep '(rbldns|named)' and then diff that output. maybe diff the "ifconfig -a" output between the two boxes and verify the expected differences. I think more details might actually translate to less clutter on the -stable list, even if it turns out to be ports related. -- Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin lambert@lambertfam.org