From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 8 16:33:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E332D16A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:33:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from quack.kfu.com (quack.kfu.com [64.168.71.209]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2AD43D45 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:33:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nsayer@kfu.com) Received: from [IPv6:2002:40a8:47d1:1:206:25ff:fe3d:aa11] (minerva.kfu.com [IPv6:2002:40a8:47d1:1:206:25ff:fe3d:aa11]) (authenticated bits=0) by quack.kfu.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA8GXlCg060223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:33:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nsayer@kfu.com) X-Message-Flag: Why aren't you using a Macintosh yet? In-Reply-To: <444qk0l8on.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <444qk0l8on.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Nick Sayer Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:33:47 -0800 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Subject: Re: 5.3 RC2 sendmail problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:33:49 -0000 On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:25 AM, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Nick Sayer writes: > >> Something is very wrong with sendmail in 5.3RC2. >> >> Under 5.2.1, my sendmail config, which is simply the default, plus a >> SMART_HOST worked fine. Under 5.3RC2, attempts to get to the smart >> host result in 'host name lookup failure'. >> >> In searching the archives, I note I am not the first to bring this up, >> but I've found no solution. >> >> I'm really, really sure nothing changed except upgrading to >> 5.3RC2. What happened? >> > > I'm not seeing anything like this. > > Can you otherwise resolve the same hostname? Yup. The only thing that even seems like it may be remotely related is that there is no MX record for this host (only an A record). But even that seems like it should make no difference.