From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
: > Nobody was called an idiot for their choice of topic. Nobody was called
: > an idiot in order to end a conversation. The reason someone got called
: > an idiot is that he was acting like an idiot.
:
: Call me an idiot... I don't care. I appreciate all the help you or
: anyone else can provide. I really appreciate the responses from DJB.
: However, I'm not going to stop asking (stupid) questions.
OK.
: > Furthermore, if people were interested in discussing 'the behavior of
: > qmail in a "firewall environment"', I think that a discussion probably
: > would have started by now. The problem is, there are really no
: > MTA-specific issues with running a mail server behind a firewall. That
: > makes it a firewall discussion, not a qmail discussion.
:
: I am interested in talking about qmail in a firewall environment. I'ved
: asked.. and received... about stripping headers... but it appears it
: amounts to setting up money laundering business front. I mean, if
: something is too complicated or error prone -- it becomes a nuisance or
: a headache. I'm not saying the solution doesn't work, but it does
: appear outright to be non-eloquent no matter how ingenious. Hey, I have
: a machine to whack with DJBware now and I'll get around to setting up
: the laundering front sooner or later. I'll even apply the 30 or 40
: other hacks to the mail system... eventually.
What's the question?
: > : But on my list there will be no rule enforcement allowed.
: > Can you please just go make your list and leave us alone?
:
: Why? Why are you so hostile?
Because I don't care about his list. If he wants to advertise it so badly
then he should put it in his .sig, then every (on topic) message he sends out
would have it.
: Anyway, my question... as to remain on topic... is:
:
: (Q) Does qmail look up new information when mail is deferred? If not,
: why the hell not?
Why would qmail cache information from bind? That's not the MTA's job and
besides that, it _really_ doesn't sound like something Dan would do.
: day 0: offsite changes their network (mx?)
: day 1: they send me an email, I receive it, I reply.
: day 3: they send mail saying that their mail has been down, please resend.
: day 4: I resend.
: day 6 or 7: They say that haven't received mail, I resend.
: day 8: my day 1 message gets returned to me as undeliverable, no 3 day
warning.
: day 11: my day 3 mail gets returned to me as undeliverable, no 3 day
warning.
:
: Meanwhile, my day 6/7 mail has gotten through. I can't explain why the
: retries that should have happened *after* day 6 didn't go through since
: all mail was going to the same "host" address (not direct IP address).
: I'm kind of annoyed that I haven't been given any notices of failures
: or inability to send mail through that should be going through until
: it's like 7 days later.
:
: Of course, I'm sure I'm just an idiot and I'm only imaging this but,
: just in case I am not, if anyone has any information on this or has had
: similar experiences, please /msg me privately as so that we won't annoy
: this list.
If you could provide more information such as the text of the bounce messages
(including headers), and your qmail logs showing delivery attempts, it would
probably be helpful.
--Adam
