[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: router -i



On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, James MacKinnon wrote:

> 	X-sender shows 	   davidn@unique.blaze.net.au, while the 
> 	From:  indicates   davidn@sdev.blaze.net.au
> 
> 	From DNS, I see that unique has it's own MX, while sdev does not.

Correct. That is indeed the situation, and intentionally so.


> Is there some "unique" feature of the 2 hosts sdev and unique :-) - an IP
> masquarade or dual homing on the same host? - just curious.

No, they are in fact different physical machines on the same network.
'sdev' is a client machine only, whereas unique is the mail host for a
cluster of 4 machines. Makes no sense to have them all having separate
mailboxes when one network machine can do all the turnstile work and
hold all of the mailboxes. This is a fairly common situation.

For example, I'm reading/writing to you on 'sdev' right now via IMAP+Pine
3.91 under OS/2 (or could be Linux, depending on which OS I happen to have
booted at the time). Only one machine of the four (csource, sdev, quilt
and unique) runs a full internet mailer. 


> May it be that  zmailer uses the name sdev as a stand in for unique
> (through mail.conf, the routes or localnames file, or aliased entry
> in /etc/hosts, or an arp entry?

What matters here is the /target/ of the smtp delivery, which is in
all cases for machines under and attached to unique.


> is sdev on a slip line via unique?

Nope, ethernet. :-) The link between server<->unique is PPP. The rest
are on a local ethernet network.


> BTW, from my (much older) ZMailer:
> 
> 61 relay:/zmailer/db>router -i
> ZMailer router (2.99.10mea       #1: Fri Jan 20 11:04:46 MST 1995)
>   PostMaster@Phys.UAlberta.CA:/ZMdev/zmailer-2.99.10
> Copyright 1992 Rayan S. Zachariassen
> Copyright 1992,1993,1994 Matti Aarnio
> 
> z$ router davidn@sdev.blaze.net.au
> <jmack.interactive@relay.Phys.UAlberta.CA>: address: davidn@sdev.blaze.net.au
> (((smtp sdev.blaze.net.au davidn@sdev.blaze.net.au default_attributes)))
> 
> so it's not unique to the newer ZMail version.

I was *sure* this used to work as I had expected it to. Someone else
mentioned in email that it has always worked as above also. My
recollection is obviously faulty.


> Perhaps there is just some discrepency between the db's on your
> nameservers.

Nup, they're all working ok, and as I mentioned, delivery works ok
as well although resolution of the MX apparently occurs in the scheduler 
(if the mail -v output is anything to go by). I actually tested this on
the same physical machine on which the nameserver runs which is free of
any other specific routings for the machines involved.

Oh well, perhaps I'm just imagining things that it used to show the true
target. Could also be that my much hacked .cf files I ran previously (most
of the bugs in which have since been fixed bar one (that is, attempting to
send to the current machine via name@[x.x.x.x] still does not work without
applying a correction to rrouter.cf). And that's also the reason I
installed with a completely fresh set. That and the occasional corruption
of the domain portion of some addresses which now seems to be completely
cured. (actually, I think this latter problem was due to a misconfiguration;
we're running Linux 1.2.13 on the ISP box, and the default Linux hostenv
configuration includes mmap() by default. This works fine in later 1.3.x
kernels, but not 1.2.x).

FWIW, I just did some testing later with sendmail 8.6.12, and it does show
the correct MX target. Perhaps that's what I'm remembering.

Regards,