Very Computer

I am using the stock sendmail.cf and sendmail on our Solaris 2.5 systems.
I have noticed that they report the hostname as ``host.our-NIS-domain''
rather than ``host.med.umn.edu'' in the mail headers of outgoing mail.  I'm
not very well versed in sendmail arcana, and I'm not sure what to look for
in the sendmail book.  Can someone point me in the right direction, or tell
me if I did something wrong in the installation of the OS, or suggest a
tweak for the sendmail.cf files?  :)  or anything, for that matter  =)

Thanks!
                Eric
--
Knights are hardly worth it.
I mean, all that shell and so little meat...

Eric D. Hendrickson              Computational Biology Centers/Medical School
Senior Analyst/Programmer           University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA
612/625-3644 (phone)           <a href="http://umn.edu/~edh">Crystal Cave</a>
612/626-0623 (fax)        Damnit!  I can't stop the heterocyclic declination!

Quote:>I am using the stock sendmail.cf and sendmail on our Solaris 2.5 systems.
>I have noticed that they report the hostname as ``host.our-NIS-domain''
>rather than ``host.med.umn.edu'' in the mail headers of outgoing mail.

Quote:>I'm
>not very well versed in sendmail arcana, and I'm not sure what to look for
>in the sendmail book.  Can someone point me in the right direction, or tell
>me if I did something wrong in the installation of the OS, or suggest a
>tweak for the sendmail.cf files?  :)  or anything, for that matter  =)

Btw, you have to then stop and restart sendmail.

(It's Monday morning and I hope I got that all right. *wink*)

Ciao,

--
Richard Bainter          Mundanely     |    OS Specialist         - OMG/CSD
Pug                      Generally     |    Applied Research Labs - U.Texas

Note: The views may not reflect my employers, or even my own for that matter.

It is a trivial fix, but I don't feel like I should have to do it, let
alone on every one of our Solaris 2.5 systems (though that can be automated
of course, but it's the principle of the thing).  I've been thinking about
installing straight sendmail 8.x on all our systems, which would mean we
would have the same version across the board, but I shouldn't have to do
*that* in order to fix this, either.

Does anybody have any suggestions on whether I should take this up with Sun
or not?  We are a contract user of theirs...

Thanks,
                Eric
--
Either one of us, by himself, is expendable.  Both of us are not.
                -- Kirk, "The Devil in the Dark", stardate 3196.1

Eric D. Hendrickson              Computational Biology Centers/Medical School
Senior Analyst/Programmer           University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA
612/625-3644 (phone)           <a href="http://umn.edu/~edh">Crystal Cave</a>
612/626-0623 (fax)        Damnit!  I can't stop the heterocyclic declination!

We are having similar problems.
On looking at it further, I have found our problem is that
it strips one subdomain off the domainname.
So , if your domain is subdom.company.com, Dm is set by DEFAULT to
"company.com.
This is idiotic. But is actually DOCUMENTED. only in the answerbook,
though.

[ive posted about this on the solve bbs]

Since it is documented, I technically can't file a "bug report", but
I AM trying to file an RFE (request for enhancement).
I encourage everyone else to do the same.
The end goal: to have sendmail use the DNS-resolved domain-name, as
is, without further mangling.

The lofty goal: full compatibility with "real" v8 sendmail, instead of
the * twisted monster sun seems to think we want.

[I WANT MY DATABASES TOO, DAMMIT!]

--
 --------------------------------------------------

   I've been thinking about
   installing straight sendmail 8.x on all our systems, which would mean we
   would have the same version across the board, but I shouldn't have to do
   *that* in order to fix this, either.

Well, in a better world, perhaps you would be correct.  But I'm
happily using sendmail 8.x on all our various Sun and non-Sun systems,
and the problems other sysadmins have with sendmail are usually fixed
by switching to 8.x.  Arguing about what *should* be necessary when
you have in hand a convenient solution that works seems a bit beside
the point.

- Tony