Bill, This is why I thought it was necessary, when trying to help Todd, if he could try and send a log of events. With the log I could use the same domain.com address and try to 'duplicate' the failure - then perform a diag against the DNS to ascertain if the problem is/was DNS related. I personally don't believe it's IMail related - but would tend to lean toward a DNS issue.
~Rick Bill Landry wrote: > Hmmm, maybe you should go back and re-read Sandy's reply. He never even > alluded to the MX priority issue you are slamming him about. His reply was > limited to the statement that "A" records were taking priority over "MX" > records, which I have not found to be the case either, since IPSwitch fixed > this many versions ago. > > Bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] IMail not using MX record preference > correctly? > > > Sandy, > > You can call it anything you want, fool. IMail has never even CLAIMED to > use MX priority until 7.1. Here's an exerpt from the 7.1 new features > propoganda: > > "Higher-Performing - SMTP will now cache positive DNS queries and IMail now > uses MX record priority when delivering email." > > You can read it yourself at the bottom of > http://www.ipswitch.com/Products/IMail_Server/whatsnew.html > > The sad thing is that the line is a lie. My production system has 5 main > mail servers running Qmail. If I turn the highest priority machine OFF, and > then try and send to an address on the Qmail servers from Imail the message > will bounce back with that Undeliverable after XX attempts error message and > never be delivered. It will not even try to send to the second highest > priority MX. If I do the EXACT same thing from another Qmail box or > Sendmail box the message is delivered within seconds (using the exact same > DNS servers). Its that simple. Try it yourself. I don't keep logs on > Imail or any other server... against our policy. Don't need any logs to > prove this one guys, try it yourself and see for yourself. > > Before you say something is "nonsense" you should know what you're talking > about. > > Never heard of this before? I've seen various formats of this exact same > problem every month for YEARS on this very forum. Guess you don't read > either. > > I had really hoped that Imail would become a decent mail server, but > Ipswitch is more interested in adding features rather than fixing the basic > product. > > R. Scott Perry, > > You claim: "In the years I've been using IMail, I've never heard any reports > of it > using the wrong MX priorities." > > How can that be. You've replied to this very problem many times and a few > THIS MONTH. Here's one of your responses from July 15th: > > >>>Is there any indication that the mail isn't going to the backup MX >>>records? >>> >>Yes, that's why I was asking. The message just gets re-qued, over and >>over, till after the 20th attempt it bounces. >> > > "That is normal. IMail will re-queue the E-mail after it tries the primary > MX record and the secondary are reached." > > and > > "That would suggest that IMail isn't going handling the situation > properly"... > > Sounds strange to me that you say you've never heard of this problem when > you've been aware of it for years. > > -Joe > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Joe Wolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:32 PM > Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] IMail not using MX record preference > correctly? > > > >>>I've been using IMail on a limited basis since the 4.0 versions. I >>>now run 7.11. No version I have ever had, including 7.11 uses the MX >>>priority correctly. For some strange reason IMail looks for A >>>records first >>> >>Sorry, but that's nonsense. >> >>Show me some logs (from a packet analyzer, preferably) that show IMail >>preferring A records to MX records when MX records are returned. Don't >>you think a few (say, hundreds of thousands of) people might have >>noticed this? >> >>As Scott said, *failback* to A records was implemented improperly in >>several earlier versions, but there is no well-known issue with MX vs. >>A record priority as you describe. >> >>-Sandy >> >> ___________________________________________________________________ Virus Scanned and Filtered by http://www.FamHost.com E-Mail System. Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
