From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 1 20:28:13 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB66106564A for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:28:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13FF8FC0C for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:28:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q21KSCTF000318 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:28:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q21KSCwG000315 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:28:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:28:12 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:28:12 -0700 (MST) Cc: Subject: Re: sendmail and smarthost 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: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:28:13 -0000 On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Warren Block wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Warren Block wrote: > >> In 8.3-PRERELEASE, sendmail is now happily ignoring a smarthost unless >> DONT_PROBE_INTERFACES is set. That used to be unnecessary. >> >> That machine rarely sends email, but a bug followup sent on Feb 25 went >> through. Maybe not significant since it was outside the local domain. > > Adding an IPv6 entry for the hostname to /etc/hosts prevents the problem > without requiring DONT_PROBE_INTERFACES. (Thanks to George Shapiro!) > > This brings up the question of why an IPv6 hosts entry is needed on an > IPv4-only system, but that's for another thread. Or not, updating and rebuilding seems to have everything back to normal. Most likely I built a GENERIC kernel with IPv6 instead of a custom one without.