Bug 640234
| Summary: | sendmail applies MAXHOSTNAMELEN for FQDN. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad> | ||||
| Component: | sendmail | Assignee: | Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | qe-baseos-daemons | ||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | high | ||||||
| Version: | 6.0 | CC: | amahdal, jskarvad, myamazak, psklenar, rvokal | ||||
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Patch | ||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | sendmail-8.14.4-9.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
| Doc Text: |
Previously, the sendmail macro MAXHOSTNAMELEN allowed only 63 characters for the host name length. However, in some cases, it was used against the length of a fully-qualified domain name (FQDN), which has a maximum length of 255 characters. Consequently, FQDN resolution did not work correctly in some cases. To fix this bug, MAXHOSTNAMELEN now allows a maximum of 255 characters.
|
Story Points: | --- | ||||
| Clone Of: | 485380 | Environment: | |||||
| Last Closed: | 2015-07-22 06:24:02 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | 485380 | ||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 640232, 836160, 947775, 1070830, 1159820 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an exception in the current release, please ask your support representative. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an exception in the current release, please ask your support representative. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this
request at this time.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Verified on all architectures by running TC#105687: TJ#929124 (old rpms) and TJ#929125 (new rpms). Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1299.html |
Created attachment 451877 [details] Proposed patch Proposed patch