On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:36:47PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> Nov 2 14:05:30 win95 qmail: 973191930.503701 delivery
> 628273: deferral: Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an
> _SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
[snip]
> As well, port 25 on mail01.sherwin.com (the best MX record) is alive
> and well, for when I telnet to the box on port 25, I get the
> following message (all one line, no spaces in the ***'s part until
> after 2000).
>
> 220
> ********************************************************0*********
> *********2*****2000 ****2*****0*00
But:
alex@buick:~$ telnet mail01.sherwin.com smtp
Trying 148.141.15.156...
Connected to mail01.sherwin.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220
********************************************************0******************2*****2000
******02**0*00
EHLO buick.978.org
500 Syntax error, command "XXXX buick.978.org" unrecognized
QUIT
221 ehub1.sherwin.com SMTP Service closing transmission channel
This proves my theory that there is a very broken firewall product out
there that corrupts the banner and ESMTP stuff on SMTP connections. We
at UML are fortunate enough to be "protected" by this product as well
(check out SMTP @ buick.978.org, and no those asterisks are NOT what
gets sent). Of course, it breaks ESMTP, but who cares? We have to
protect broken mailers.
Other qmail servers never had any problem with the SMTP service on
buick.978.org in spite of this insane TCP corruption, but maybe this
particular firewall/mailer combination at sherwin.com is causing non
standards compliant behavior which rubs qmail the wrong way. But their
end is broken.
> However, since I DO NOT get this error with any other domain besides
> this one, I am curious to know why it is happening. Also, folks
> at sherwin.com claim I'm an idiot and blame me. *sigh*
Ask them what happened to ESMTP.
> The fine folks at sherwin.com claim I am the ONLY ISP on
> the planet who has trouble with this, that it simply MUST be on my
> end. And really, with the two other mail servers that I run, I don't
> have trouble sending email to sherwin.com...so their argument has
> some validity.
You running any qmail patches?
PGP signature
