From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 8 22:34:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB43C976; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:34:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.allbsd.org (gatekeeper.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e001::32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF00FB0; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alph.allbsd.org (p1137-ipbf1505funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [118.7.212.137]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r08MYCGl050343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:34:22 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by alph.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r08MYAb5003788; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:34:12 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:29:35 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20130109.072935.595111158363526981.hrs@allbsd.org> To: gshapiro@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1 From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <20130108180920.GJ36633@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com> References: <20130108151837.GF35868@acme.spoerlein.net> <20130108180920.GJ36633@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com> X-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Wed_Jan__9_07_29_35_2013_488)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.4 at gatekeeper.allbsd.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.allbsd.org [133.31.130.32]); Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:34:22 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.1 required=13.0 tests=CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT, ONLY1HOPDIRECT,SAMEHELOBY2HOP,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on gatekeeper.allbsd.org Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org 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: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:34:29 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Wed_Jan__9_07_29_35_2013_488)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gregory Shapiro wrote in <20130108180920.GJ36633@rugsucker.smi.sendmail.com>: gs> > How can I unstupid sendmail here? gs> gs> I don't think sendmail is being stupid here as it is doing what it has gs> been doing under 8.x and 9.1 (the code is the same). I think gs> something changed with the upgrade to 9.1. As far as tracking it gs> down, the sendmail code does: gs> gs> getipnodebyname("acme.spoerlein.net", AF_INET6, AI_DEFAULT|AI_ALL, gs> &err); gs> gs> This will only return an IPv4 mapped address if: gs> gs> 1. There are no IPv6 addresses configured on the interfaces. How are gs> your IPv6 addresses assigned? If auto-configured (DHCPv6, RTADV), is gs> it possible sendmail is being started before autoconfiguration has gs> completed? Restarting the MTA after boot and seeing if it still gets gs> the mapped address will say whether or not this is the cause. gs> gs> 2. The query for an AAAA record for acme.spoerlein.net failed. This gs> doesn't appear to be the case for dns based on your dig output gs> (assuming you ran that dig command on the same machine that is gs> exhibiting the problem). However, your nsswitch.conf lists hosts gs> before dns and there have been broken name resolution implementations gs> that, with 'hosts' listed first in nsswitch.conf have given back bad gs> info if the first hostname match didn't have the IPv6 address. You gs> could try switching the order in /etc/hosts to see if this helps. gs> (Note, the broken implementation was not FreeBSD.) Just curious, but is there any specific reason not to return an error when Family=inet6 and no AAAA RR? -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Wed_Jan__9_07_29_35_2013_488)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAlDsnc8ACgkQTyzT2CeTzy22kgCfWuSZEZQzs88ndlkUd1tKOiVa qjQAn1yo0BeZ9liBE+7X4DwYCLYjl56B =Kqni -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Wed_Jan__9_07_29_35_2013_488)----