[1240] in NetBSD-Development
Re: Masquerading dupe suppresion loses on FQ and non-FQ together
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Mon Feb 5 03:56:51 1996
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 03:56:21 -0500
To: "Kari E. Hurtta" <Kari.Hurtta@dionysos.FMI.FI>
Cc: sendmail-bugs@sendmail.org, netbsd-dev@MIT.EDU
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199602050847.KAA14781@dionysos.fmi.fi> from
"Kari E. Hurtta" <Kari.Hurtta@dionysos.FMI.FI>
at Mon, 5 Feb 1996 10:47:34 +0200 (EET)
Kari writes:
> relay mailer assumes, that relay is running sendmail and thereofe uses
> different kind limits for line length and so on.
>
> (So 'relay' mailer is 'esmtp' mailer + 'smtp8' mailer + bigger line length.)
Hmm, ok; it would seem that it would make sense to just junk it and
let ESMTP negotiation take care of it, but perhaps the efficieny is
worth it (??). I guess the relay mailer is much more useful for
non-smtp configurations? [note that somewhere we moved from a
discussion of Mrelay to confRELAY_MAILER, and the two aren't the same
concepts...]
> > Unfortunately, it's still not quite right:
>
> Use also: define(`confSMTP_MAILER', `esmtp')
Well, sure :-) Again, wonders why that's not the default...
(actually, in my case, the MX of MIT.EDU is not currently an
esmtp-capable mailer, so this is not necessarily advantageous, not
that it matters much).
Crux of the easy-to-fix bug: It certainly seems to be the case that
when using FEATURE(allmasquerade), one should expect confRELAY_MAILER
and confSMTP_MAILER to resolve to the same thing. Either that or
sameaddr() should consider some mailers equivalent (smtp, esmtp,
etc.).
[ various quotes on what the relay mailer can be used for ]
Right, I know what it can be used for, but it doesn't seem clear why
it's necessary at all...
No ideas on the next problem (sameaddr(), etc.)?
--jhawk
