HPE GreenLake Administration
- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Q-n-A about access.db w/ sendmail 8.11
Operating System - HP-UX
1827790
Members
3026
Online
109969
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-27-2002 01:03 PM
06-27-2002 01:03 PM
Hello everyone
I am looking around at docs that have to do with the access.db feature on sendmail 8.11. I have a few differnt things as how to set it up. And I was wondering if someone could clear this up for me.
I understand the REJECT, OK , RELAY ..
But if you want to OK from a whole ip range do you do
192.168.10.* OK
or
192.168.10. OK
makemap:
When you do a make map do you use
makemap dbm /etc/mail/access < /etc/mail/access
or
makemap hash /etc/mail/access < /etc/mail/access
the sendmail.cf file has the following line.
# Access list database (for spam stomping)
Kaccess dbm /etc/mail/access
But I have read to change the dbm to hash and use hash.
What is the differnce and what is the best way to get his to work.
I am just having trouble with this freature and cant get it to work. I am still getting relaying denied on some hosts. And then I look for docs but they just contradict each other on how to make the access.db and how to set it up. I am used to the nice and easy 8.8.3 LOCALIP , SPAMMER, DENIEDIP and so on.
All help and advice on this is welcome.
Thanks
~ Richard
I am looking around at docs that have to do with the access.db feature on sendmail 8.11. I have a few differnt things as how to set it up. And I was wondering if someone could clear this up for me.
I understand the REJECT, OK , RELAY ..
But if you want to OK from a whole ip range do you do
192.168.10.* OK
or
192.168.10. OK
makemap:
When you do a make map do you use
makemap dbm /etc/mail/access < /etc/mail/access
or
makemap hash /etc/mail/access < /etc/mail/access
the sendmail.cf file has the following line.
# Access list database (for spam stomping)
Kaccess dbm /etc/mail/access
But I have read to change the dbm to hash and use hash.
What is the differnce and what is the best way to get his to work.
I am just having trouble with this freature and cant get it to work. I am still getting relaying denied on some hosts. And then I look for docs but they just contradict each other on how to make the access.db and how to set it up. I am used to the nice and easy 8.8.3 LOCALIP , SPAMMER, DENIEDIP and so on.
All help and advice on this is welcome.
Thanks
~ Richard
Solved! Go to Solution.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-27-2002 01:14 PM
06-27-2002 01:14 PM
Solution
For aggregates, I use
A.B.C no terminating .
-test your access rules, YMMV
if cf says dbm, use dbm. hash is newer than dbm. You can only use hash if sendmail was compiled with the NEWDB option (yours probably was). DBM can only be used if sendmail was compiled with NDBM (yours probably was). To test type
$sendmail -d0.1 you < /dev/null
For ease, I'd use dbm unless you have a scaling issue to deal with (I use dbm on a system with > 7000 accounts and significant mail volume).
A.B.C no terminating .
-test your access rules, YMMV
if cf says dbm, use dbm. hash is newer than dbm. You can only use hash if sendmail was compiled with the NEWDB option (yours probably was). DBM can only be used if sendmail was compiled with NDBM (yours probably was). To test type
$sendmail -d0.1 you < /dev/null
For ease, I'd use dbm unless you have a scaling issue to deal with (I use dbm on a system with > 7000 accounts and significant mail volume).
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-27-2002 09:04 PM
06-27-2002 09:04 PM
Re: Q-n-A about access.db w/ sendmail 8.11
Innovations are made when conventions are broken
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
06-28-2002 04:36 AM
06-28-2002 04:36 AM
Re: Q-n-A about access.db w/ sendmail 8.11
I'm not sure how different your version is from 8.9.3, but I set up sendmail 8.9.3 not to relay, but wanted my own network to be able to relay. My access file looks like this:
192.168.10 RELAY
Which denies relay to anyone accept my own hosts.
Fred
192.168.10 RELAY
Which denies relay to anyone accept my own hosts.
Fred
fmartin@applicatorssales.com
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
Company
Support
Events and news
Customer resources
© Copyright 2025 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP