Re: Sendmail 8.13.x and uucp
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Ioannou Ioannis wrote:
> A bit of help from sendmail gurus pls
>
> I recently upgraded to sarge with sendmail 8.13.x a machine that is both email
> and uucp getaway (connected to uucp machines straight with modems).
> Please DO NOT ask WHY I use uucp, there are specific reasons for this.
Great... I've got a *very* small uucp network for testing, but have only
really tested mta->mta, and without bang addressing.
> The machine used to have sendmail 8.9.x and the setup described below used to
> work for years. UUCP setup is working fine, and also I can send outgoing
> messages with sendmail without a problem. Receiving messages from uucp to
> sendmail is the problem.
Yes, there are *HUGE* differences in 8.9 and 8.13 (almost all for the
better) !
> With 8.13.x, when I receive a mail from uucp, let say from myfriend!uucp,
> rmail sends it to MSP, which is rewriting it as
> myfriend!uucp@getaway.mydomain.com. With the old setup an address like this
> was acceptable from sendmail. Now MTA rejects it as "sender's domain does not
> exist". I tried to force MSP to rewrite it as myfriend!uucp@mydomain.com, but
> again MTA rejects it. Mind that both 'getaway.mydomain.com' and
> 'mydomain.com' are resovalble, and they are accepted by sendmail if used with
> an smtp address. It seems that MTA has a problem with the mixed uucp+smpt
> address. Mind also that -since the machine is also email getaway- I can not
> afford allowing unresolved domains. I finally used in submit.mc :
Good points, you definitely don't want to accept unresolvable domains
(if only I could convince the AT&T folks of that)... I'm really
wondering if rmail maybe shouldn't be handing the mail directly to the
MTA instead of using the MSP...
Lets take this off-group for now... I expect this'll take more than
a few passes (and maybe setting up reciprocal addressing), and when we've
got something working, we can post back here for posterity.
--
Rick Nelson
*** Knghtbrd is now known as SirKewLDooD
*** Mercury kicked SirKewlDooD from #quakeforge (*WHACK*)
Reply to: