On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:09:49 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 8:39 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> I agree. The best way to sort out these problems is by carrying out
>> additional tests with the host we were experiencing problems but I've
>> had not very good experiences when contacting Spanis
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:58:29 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 5:40 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:23 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
>>> errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MT
On 9/4/2011 8:39 AM, Camaleón wrote:
I agree. The best way to sort out these problems is by carrying out
additional tests with the host we were experiencing problems but I've had
not very good experiences when contacting Spanish admins, most of them
just don't reply at all or are not interested
On 9/4/2011 5:40 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:23 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MTU "system-wide"?
Slightly lower overall performance when communicating wi
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 09:14:45 -0300, D G Teed wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> I've been busy on these days trying to solve a problem with Postfix
>> that drove me nuts.
>>
>> Sporadically (let's say one in hundred e-mails) my Postfix had problems
>> for delivering m
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 14:06:02 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> 04.09.2011 12:40, Camaleón:
>
>>> I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
>>> errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MTU
>>> "system-wide"?
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> Mmm, no replies yet...
>>
>> D
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:56:51 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:40:29AM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:23 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> > I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
>> > errors, are there any exp
HI,
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:40:29AM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:23 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
> > errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MTU "system-wide"?
>
> (...)
>
> Mmm
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been busy on these days trying to solve a problem with Postfix that
> drove me nuts.
>
> Sporadically (let's say one in hundred e-mails) my Postfix had problems
> for delivering messages with ~3 MiB of attachment to some e-mail ho
04.09.2011 12:40, Camaleón:
>> I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
>> errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MTU "system-wide"?
>
> (...)
>
> Mmm, no replies yet...
>
> Does it mean then that there are no gotchas to care about in setting a
> MTU v
On Sunday 04 September 2011 5:03:41 pm lina wrote:
> Sorry, I do not understand well most what you said even I read three times.
> May I ask one thing here,
> Last time I tried the icedove but don't know how to set the SMTP for
> hotmail one.
> Is the icedove a good choice (for me) to grab emails f
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:23 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
>> errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MTU "system-wide"?
>
> (...)
>
> Mmm, no replies yet...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:09:23 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
> I'm still monitoring this but if this is the "cure" to prevent such
> errors, are there any expected drawbacks for lowering MTU "system-wide"?
(...)
Mmm, no replies yet...
Does it mean then that there are no gotchas to care about in s
13 matches
Mail list logo
