Bryan Hepworth wrote: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.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 eth1NXDOMAIN 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.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
DaveThanks 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.
ThanksBryan
