in-log attached. I don't see any truncation in there, though you can see that there is the byte sequence 0D090A09 in there, which I think is what is breaking it (whatever "it" is). Still not sure if this indicates the mangling happens somewhere on my linux server, or somewhere upstream in Outlook/Exchange. God I hate having to deal with Outlook.
Also, to Axel: I don't have access to any of the raw email source on the Exchange/Outlook end, which is frustrating, but unavoidable. If I find the mangling happening on the Postfix/Dovecot end of things, this is actually good news to me, since I have full access to that portion of the email trail. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Timo Sirainen <t...@iki.fi> wrote: > 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. > > >
20101108-160201-28857.in
Description: Binary data
