On 7/1/2010 4:55 PM, James R. Marcus wrote:
Sorry I didn't post them before I was just trying to do a
sanity check. Here they are:

---------------
Postfix Logs
---------------
Jun 23 16:48:10 relay0 postfix/smtp[30504]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=<sa...@2co.com <mailto:sa...@2co.com>>,
relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:25, delay=0.98,
delays=0.01/0.01/0.33/0.62, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (lost
connection with mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221] while sending end
of data -- message may
Jun 23 18:02:08 relay0 postfix/smtp[1638]: 5ED4F114BBC:
enabling PIX <CRLF>.<CRLF> workaround for
mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:25
Jun 23 18:02:18 relay0 postfix/smtp[1638]: 5ED4F114BBC:
to=<sa...@2co.com <mailto:sa...@2co.com>>,
relay=mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221]:25, delay=4449,
delays=4438/0.03/0.34/10, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (lost
connection with mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221] while sending end
of data -- message may be

deferred - message can't be received now, please try later.

lost connection - the other end disconnected in the middle of the conversation.

Is it just this one host that's deferring your mail?
Did the recipient get the mail anyway?
Does the mail eventually get delivered?

Have you confirmed the user's claim that only plain-text mail is deferred?

Have you contacted the postmaster of 64.128.185.221?

If you can deliver to other hosts OK, the problem is at 64.128.185.221.



----------
The Bounce
----------
Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: relay0.edhance.com <http://relay0.edhance.com>

sa...@2co.com <mailto:sa...@2co.com>
#< #4.4.2 X-Postfix; lost connection with
mail.2co.com[64.128.185.221] while sending end of data --
message may be sent more than once> #SMTP#



This isn't a bounce notice; it's a "message delayed" notice.
The mail was not rejected; the connection was lost during transmission.

Postfix will continue trying to deliver the mail until the queue file expires; typically 5 days.

As the notice says, the mail *might* have been delivered to the recipient, but your local sever can't tell because the remote end disconnected while




  -- Noel Jones

Reply via email to