Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:01:52 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: michiel@boland.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, uqs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sendmail vs ipv6 broken after upgrade to 9.1 Message-ID: <yge1udufoa7.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <20130109.073354.730245417155474512.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20130108151837.GF35868@acme.spoerlein.net> <50EC5922.5030600@boland.org> <20130108184051.GI35868@acme.spoerlein.net> <20130109.073354.730245417155474512.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:33:54 +0900 (JST)
>>>>> Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> said:
hrs> I think this just hides the problem. If gshapiro@'s explanation is
hrs> correct, no ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 address should be returned if the name
hrs> resolution works fine...
I changed getipnodebyname to obey ip6addrctl in years past. I read
RFC 2553 again, and realize that it mentions IPv6 addresses are
returned 1st. So, my past change might be bad thing. X-(
However, I'm still curious about use of AI_ALL in sendmail. As far as
I read the source of sendmail briefly, it seems the usage doesn't
depend on AI_ALL.
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO
ume@mahoroba.org ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.mahoroba.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yge1udufoa7.wl%ume>