David Young wrote:
> 
> Hi Andre,
> 
> Attached are the headers of one of the suspect emails. Regrettably, I
> have no qmail-send logs of the incident, because they were rotated
> before I became aware of the problem. I've now drastically increased
> multilog's MAXFILESIZE variable, so that I my logs will "go further back" :)

One more thing. Is this problem repeatable? What happens if
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> today tries to send another mail
to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? Will the same happen again, or
will it go through this time?

-- 
Andre


> Summary of the headers below...
> 
> - the user at Afgri was not intended to receive the email.
> - bob.net.lithotech.co.za is our primary mail server, all outgoing mail
> goes via this server. It is running qmail-ldap 20030801
> - enzo.net.lithotech.co.za is a clusterhost at another branch, running
> 20030501.
> - The email was sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (a user on
> enzo) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   - I've added "nospam" to the email addresses, to protect the users
> from spambots
> 
> Received: from afgri-relay (192.168.170.15 [192.168.170.15]) by
> afgri-exch.otk.co.za with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> Version 5.5.2653.13)
>         id RHHFTYVV; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:24:24 +0200
> Received: from bob.net.lithotech.co.za ([165.233.49.45]) by afgri-relay with
> InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:23:15 +0200
> Received: (qmail 16427 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2003 07:11:32 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO enzo.net.lithotech.co.za) ([172.16.41.62])
>            (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>            by bob.net.lithotech.co.za (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA
> encrypted compressed SMTP
>            for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 29 Sep 2003 07:11:25 -0000
> Received: (qmail 6360 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2003 07:12:57 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO bisheng) ([172.16.41.197])
>            (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>            by enzo.net.lithotech.co.za (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>            for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 29 Sep 2003 07:12:54 -0000
> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Bishen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: did we look at this one?
> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:14:36 +0200
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0027_01C3866A.1A52DF80"
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
> Importance: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> 
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > David Young wrote:
> >
> >>Hi All,
> >>
> >>I'm also experiencing this problem...
> >
> >
> > We have had a bug in 20030901 which caused some cluster problems.
> > This is one is going to be fixed in 20031001.
> >
> > I can't image what could be the cause of this for release 20030801a.
> > There aren't any changes in the recipient handling functions compared
> > to 20030501.
> >
> > While running different versions of qmail-ldap within a cluster should
> > as such not be a problem, I don't recommend it. It might be that
> > different clusterhosts have different handling of some ldap attributes
> > (due to bug fixes or feature enhancements).
> >
> > It would be really helpful if you could provide some email headers and
> > qmail logs which correspond to this incident.
> >
> 
> -------
> This e-mail and attachments are confidential/legally privileged and any
> unauthorised use, distribution or disclosure thereof, in whatever form,
> by anyone other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received
> this e-mail in error, please destroy it. The views and opinions in this
> e-mail and attachments may not necessarily be those of the Directors and
> Management of the Lithotech Group of Companies. The aforementioned does
> not accept any liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from
> this e-mail and/or from accessing any attachments.

Reply via email to