kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (09/03/89)
In article <3897@ditka.UUCP> I write: >Over the past month or so a handful of messages have ended up >in the uucp mailbox here on ditka ... >All seem to have bounced several times before finally finding >a home here, such that it is. All seem to have bounced off of >rt1 early along the way, for reasons which also elude me. All >have involved sundc.East.Sun.COM early in the process ... I spent several hours yesterday and today going over all the logs I could find. The first such message came thru ditka at 10:22 pm on August 8th: From: pacbell!csed-1!sundc.East.Sun.COM!sundc! Sun.COM!claris!ames!postmaster (wrapped for clarity) To: rt1!hc!cs!rock The rt1!hc link disappeared about that time; rt1 *should* have stripped the hc, found the cs (which it doesn't know), and sent it to ditka for routing. (I know, re-routing is bad, but quite a lot of traffic went via rt1!hc and the link was rather abruptly dropped, certainly before the maps were updated.) Instead, a few minutes later I see the following going thru ditka: From: rt1!ditka!pacbell!csed-1!sundc.East.Sun.COM! sundc!Sun.COM!claris!ames!postditka (wrapped for clarity) To: rt1!hc!cs!rock Note that the "From:" username has been changed. Apparently one of the many bugs that IBM introduced in sendmail for AIX 2.2.1 is a buffer size of only 70 characters for the "From:" address at some point ("ditka!pacbell ... ames!post" is exactly 70 characters long; other trashed messages confirm this). I've been sorely tempted to trash the IBM sendmail in favor of an unmolested 5.61 version; maybe this is the excuse I've been waiting for. Of course there are probably many other hacks that will keep 5.61 from working on AIX without a great deal of painful work. >I see no reason why either of the messages >should have passed thru ditka or rt1 at all This part part still remains a mystery. I can't find any other hc's in the maps, and none of the sites involved would have been routed via the real hc. If it helps, here is a 'uniq -c' on all the rmails directed thru rt1 and hc that seemed to lead to trouble: 1 rmail rt1!hc!4!30 1 rmail rt1!hc!ajpo!greeneh 6 rmail rt1!hc!ajpo.sei.cmu!ploedereder 4 rmail rt1!hc!cs!rock 17 rmail rt1!hc!csed-1stoltz!mohar 1 rmail rt1!hc!csed-37!mohar 1 rmail rt1!hc!fatvax!ebailey 4 rmail rt1!hc!ida!rwex 5 rmail rt1!hc!ncs.dnd.ca!smichell 1 rmail rt1!hc!oids-8!wheeler 1 rmail rt1!hc!philabs.philips.labs!caj 1 rmail rt1!hc!philabs.philips.labs!dpb 1 rmail rt1!hc!philabs.philips.labs!ewk 1 rmail rt1!hc!philabs.philips.labs!mat 1 rmail rt1!hc!philabs.philips.labs!mmr 2 rmail rt1!hc!umass!gsg 1 rmail rt1!hc!ut.edu.ray!issi All of these passed thru sundc early in the process, for whatever that might be worth. -- Karl Swartz |UUCP ames!lll-winken!pacbell!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |Internet kls@rt1.lanl.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
clarke@acheron.uucp (Ed Clarke/10240000) (09/04/89)
From article <3940@ditka.UUCP>, by kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz): > > I've been sorely tempted to trash the IBM sendmail in favor of an > unmolested 5.61 version; maybe this is the excuse I've been waiting > for. Of course there are probably many other hacks that will keep > 5.61 from working on AIX without a great deal of painful work. > I picked up the sources from Berkeley. Once you figure out the correct configuration options it works without any changes. I had to pick up bind 4.8 at the same time to get some missing resolver subroutines ( I think that they're normally in libc.a on a bsd system ). I have not tried the IDA modifications. -- Ed Clarke acheron!clarke