On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:42:19AM -0800 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I don't know how..or why .. but when i got in to work today i checked my
> system at home and all mail was delivered(haven't gone bakc in the logs
> yet), i sent another test mail from 2 different internet accounts
I once had a problem similar to what you originally described.
The culprit turned out to be a secondary mapping in hosts for the
address record of the MX. In this case, it was a very bad nonsense
address in the 192.168.x.x block.
Whether mail would be delivered or deferred seemed to rely on a
com
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:53:01 -0800, Nate Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>load at the time was 0.00-0.01 ..the machine is well equipped with a
>k6-3 400(256k full speed cache) 2MB l3 cache, 256MB ram ..
>
>wish sendmail(and other MTAs in general) would give more information ...
>exim and postfix d
load at the time was 0.00-0.01 ..the machine is well equipped with a
k6-3 400(256k full speed cache) 2MB l3 cache, 256MB ram ..
wish sendmail(and other MTAs in general) would give more information ...
exim and postfix didn't give any useful errors either:(
nate
Damian Menscher wrote:
>
> Random
I don't know how..or why .. but when i got in to work today i checked my
system at home and all mail was delivered(haven't gone bakc in the logs
yet), i sent another test mail from 2 different internet accounts and both
arrived without being deferred.
thats a big relief. maybe the DNS on that mach
5 matches
Mail list logo
