From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 1 10:53:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B2EC13 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:53:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from timp87@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F80729A2 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id oz10so2072231veb.31 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KPd9uBHksUWh5Nc+a3ToStl6YP5ZdIh07KY6VvoVqsc=; b=0WVz/KxTW/aJB6/13LU8wqnhacpVY/kV+gvwPmWcsTvqAaZ5nNZJZ6+TsrXX64QdZw wkfL7vZHwFW1F6QRVhuFGhRdH4nMPAtoytucHEnNPLk53a65C5pQ6V5A+ox1g+xqxTgs dCoyOpuyNaxCeZr9YpBhkGjtmvHm2kCD/eYHCGD29GZJC+Bsq2yJGizLJhI1SP/eEJYC uQM9inDyhbzu9gUqwBrLQz+kYIxXt9oGcPvYncXwruMYFpmDzAIyYu/QVAlQpvt9Wy/0 hcefirvvxzCWuGrDbahyEEzctgGcoWuKb4EskrnN4ry6PsejT4ZtVe966RURSn0OGY7U 2EXA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.202.1 with SMTP id ke1mr245000vec.85.1375354388561; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.38.134 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:53:08 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Strange sendmail behaviour after upgrade to 9.1-BETA2 From: Pavel Timofeev To: Kimmo Paasiala , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:53:09 -0000 I'm sorry( So resolver is MS server. But does it matter when it works good with 9.1 and doesn't work with 9.2? What I have to do for investigation? 2013/8/1 Kimmo Paasiala : > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Pavel Timofeev wrote: >> Ok, I understand. Thanks a lot for excelent explanation. Maybe >> sendmail ignores additional section? >> >> I use _default_ fresh system, so resolver is _default_ bind. >> For investigation I've just installed fresh 9.1-RELEASE amd64, email >> delivery works and picture looks different than on 9.2: >> > > The default resolver is not BIND because it's not enabled by default. > The nameservers listed in /etc/resolv.conf are used for resolving > addresses in default setup (assuming they are filled properly by DHCP > client or manually by user). > > -Kimmo