On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 16:57 -0800, Scott Goodwin wrote: > Note that this is the rawlog.out, not the rawlog.in. My confusion here lies > in the fact that the breakage seems to be in the out-log only. I just don't > know how to read these logs. > The in-log is basically exactly the same as the out-log, except that it > doesn't contain the first 38 lines that the out-log contains... so does that > mean the email came in just fine, but didn't go "out" ok? Or does this > still confirm that the email was mangled from outside of Dovecot? > Thanks ahead of time. I can send the in-log if you want.
Yeah, the in-log would have been much more useful than out-log. The important question is if in the in-log the References: header is truncated at the same point.
