Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 17:44:53 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: "Kent S. Gordon" <kgor@inetspace.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tun0 problem in 3.0-970209-SNAP Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970508173744.25858D-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199705081431.JAA02487@chess.inetspace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 May 1997, Kent S. Gordon wrote: > >>>>> "steve" == Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> writes: > > > [snipped current out of cc: list as what I'm asking now isn't > > current specific.] > > > Okay, from here I have a problem: I have a modem connected to > > this machine and it runs the following ppp -alias -auto > > myprovider > > > This all works fine and the modem starts up whenever the network > > is needed as expected and it aliases properly so I have a > > gateway for other boxes needing net access. > > > Unfortunately just mailing anyone locally sets off a dialup > > though. > Let me guess /etc/resolv.conf points to a machine at your provider. > Set up a local caching DNS ( or local secondary for your domain) to > stop this. sendmail is doing a DNS lookup before processing the mail. > Sendmail could also be reconfigured to not do DNS lookups, but I would > suggest the caching DNS server approach. This was the decided 'alternative' approach, I've had resolv.conf actually looking at hosts first before bind. This was what confused me so much, as sendmail still DNS lookups on localhost, even sending mail to root@localhost I even tried root@localhost. same result. After this I tried sendmail -bt and got it to parse root@localhost and I can't figure out what on eart the system for determining if an address is local is anyway. It seems to need to use almost every ruleset there is. Thanks anyway, I didn't want to have to take the DNS approach as this is for proposal customers, and I have no idea what they will be wanting to call their local machines... (which will be given addresses in 10.0.1/24 range, can't remember why only class C in the 10. range but it made sense at the time..) Cacheing sorts that, and has it's other benefits, I just didn't want to have to set it up. Yeah, bad excuse, but apart from laziness I want the minimal amount of stuff running on this box. Steve Roome Technical Systems Manager, Vision Interactive Ltd. E: steve@visint.co.uk M: +44 (0) 976 241 342 T: +44 (0) 117 973 0597 F: +44 (0) 117 923 8522
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970508173744.25858D-100000>