OT sendmail delay

[Bryan Hepworth]

> Bryan Hepworth wrote:
>
>>route
>>
>>Kernel IP routing table
>>Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
>>192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
>>94.0.0.0 93.0.0.100 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>>92.0.0.0 93.0.0.100 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>>93.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>>default 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
>>
> The 169.254.0.0 entry is for compatibility with a Microsoft peer-to-peer 
> networking.  It shouldn't hurt anything.  The 94.0.0.0, 92.0.0.0 and 
> 93.0.0.0 entries are probably not what you want unless the route to these 
> subnets should still be out eth0 (the 93.1.1.208 NIC).  My take on your 
> original posting was the eth0 was no longer in use.
>
>>dig internal
>>
>>; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> any internal.coxagri.com
>>;; global options: printcmd
>>;; Got answer:
>>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 8694
>>;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
>>
> NXDOMAIN is dig's way of saying it can't find an IP address for 
> internal.coxagri.com.  See if you can get this boxes name and IP address 
> to resolve through dig.  Sendmail likes to have it's hostname resolvable 
> through DNS.

Dave

Thanks for the insight - I'm working on it over the weekend when everyone 
has gone home.

The public ip from this address is an ADSL link name rather than 
internal.coxagri.com

Having had a quick look at other people in the same scenario I have some 
reading to do. If you have any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them.

Thanks

Bryan