On Nov 28, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> My current theory is that the issue is FrontBridge specific, and is the
> result of some firewall or proxy software in front of Microsoft Exchange.
An update; I gather there are eyes on the problem.
Aloha,
Michael.
--
"Please have your Inter
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:08:09AM +1000, Stephen Thorne wrote:
> On 2010-11-28, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > It's up at http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/workarounds.html
> > > and soon at http://www.postfix.org/workarounds.html.
> > >
> > > Please have a look for glaring errors. I'll link
On 2010-11-28, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > It's up at http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/workarounds.html
> > and soon at http://www.postfix.org/workarounds.html.
> >
> > Please have a look for glaring errors. I'll link it off the top-level
> > webpages when the text is OK.
>
> Looks good. Ju
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 06:10:45PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > >
> > > Wietse, is this sufficient? I know it is not very detailed on the
> > > "impact analysis". Since pipelined "[message].QUIT"
> > > works correctly, while in theory there could be other
Wietse Venema:
> Victor Duchovni:
> >
> > Wietse, is this sufficient? I know it is not very detailed on the
> > "impact analysis". Since pipelined "[message].QUIT"
> > works correctly, while in theory there could be other pipelining issues,
> > none other that SAV come to mind.
>
> Thanks. I'll p
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 02:13:11PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> C:MAIL FROM: SIZE=338
> C:RCPT TO:
> C:RSET
> C:QUIT
>
> S:221 2.0.0 Service closing transmission channel
>
> Which means that Postfix reads the 221 as a positive reply to "MAIL
> FROM", and that Postfix reads EOF instead of t
Victor Duchovni:
> C> MAIL FROM:
> C> RCPT TO:
> C> RSET
> C> QUIT
>
> S> 250 2.1.0 Sender OK
> S> 221 2.0.0 Service closing transmission channel
Should not the Postfix SMTP client read the 221 as a positive
response to RCPT TO, and consider the recipient as "deliverable"?
Victor Duchovni:
>
> Wietse, is this sufficient? I know it is not very detailed on the
> "impact analysis". Since pipelined "[message].QUIT"
> works correctly, while in theory there could be other pipelining issues,
> none other that SAV come to mind.
Thanks. I'll put this up on a page so people
