Xref: utzoo comp.mail.sendmail:2154 comp.bugs.4bsd:1614 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!charon!piet From: piet@cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.bugs.4bsd Subject: Re: Local Configuration Error Message-ID: <2199@charon.cwi.nl> Date: 20 Sep 90 15:56:55 GMT References: <1990Sep19.002139.32095@mp.cs.niu.edu> Sender: news@cwi.nl Followup-To: comp.mail.sendmail Distribution: comp Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 25 >With two or more MX records, the behavior is dependent on the order >in which the MX records are retrieved from the name server. If the >best preference/local address entry comes first, it is rejected and >so are all other MX records. There is then a lookup for an A-record >(in deliver.c). But if the best preference does not come first, after >all MX records have been stored they are sorted. In this case if the >best preference is local a configuration error is declared. > Clearly the dependence on the order makes no sense. Either it should >always be a configuration error, or it should always result in a search >for an A-record. Since the second choice is more useful, the patch >implements it. In both cases only the local MX record is discarded (but marked) and all other MX records are stored and sorted. Then, if the highest-preference MX record points to the local host it's an error that should not be "solved" by looking at an A record. After all, the presence of an MX record indicates that, for whatever reason, the A record should *not* be used (e.g. if the domain is used by a uucp site). And if there is an A record, but the error occurs due to a wrong DNS entry for the domain, it's the DNS entry that should be fixed, not the way sendmail handles MX RR's. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@cwi.nl)