On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> Nobody was called an idiot for their choice of topic. Nobody was called
> an idiot in order to end a conversation. The reason someone got called
> an idiot is that he was acting like an idiot.
Call me an idiot... I don't care. I appreciate all the help you or
anyone else can provide. I really appreciate the responses from DJB.
However, I'm not going to stop asking (stupid) questions.
> Furthermore, if people were interested in discussing 'the behavior of
> qmail in a "firewall environment"', I think that a discussion probably
> would have started by now. The problem is, there are really no
> MTA-specific issues with running a mail server behind a firewall. That
> makes it a firewall discussion, not a qmail discussion.
I am interested in talking about qmail in a firewall environment. I'ved
asked.. and received... about stripping headers... but it appears it
amounts to setting up money laundering business front. I mean, if
something is too complicated or error prone -- it becomes a nuisance or
a headache. I'm not saying the solution doesn't work, but it does
appear outright to be non-eloquent no matter how ingenious. Hey, I have
a machine to whack with DJBware now and I'll get around to setting up
the laundering front sooner or later. I'll even apply the 30 or 40
other hacks to the mail system... eventually.
> : But on my list there will be no rule enforcement allowed.
> Can you please just go make your list and leave us alone?
Why? Why are you so hostile?
Anyway, my question... as to remain on topic... is:
(Q) Does qmail look up new information when mail is deferred? If not,
why the hell not?
Look at the source you say? I answer I'm not a programmer. You say
then I am not in a position to be installing qmail or any other mta in
the first place -- but, alas, who are you to say this when, in fact, I
am put in just this exact position. So you say become a programmer. I
say, please just stay on topic and address the question, if you can.
So, please stay on topic... don't attack me, address the question if you
can, if not, please don't insult (me or anyone else).
Now, the reason I ask this is I have experienced something along the
lines of (days are approximations, don't insult!):
day 0: offsite changes their network (mx?)
day 1: they send me an email, I receive it, I reply.
day 3: they send mail saying that their mail has been down, please resend.
day 4: I resend.
day 6 or 7: They say that haven't received mail, I resend.
day 8: my day 1 message gets returned to me as undeliverable, no 3 day warning.
day 11: my day 3 mail gets returned to me as undeliverable, no 3 day warning.
Meanwhile, my day 6/7 mail has gotten through. I can't explain why the
retries that should have happened *after* day 6 didn't go through since
all mail was going to the same "host" address (not direct IP address).
I'm kind of annoyed that I haven't been given any notices of failures
or inability to send mail through that should be going through until
it's like 7 days later.
Of course, I'm sure I'm just an idiot and I'm only imaging this but,
just in case I am not, if anyone has any information on this or has had
similar experiences, please /msg me privately as so that we won't annoy
this list.
Scott
ps: Keep in mind: The opposing traffic has a yield and I have the right
away-- but I treat them as if they're going to barrel right through the
yield... and I am alive today because I have done so. If you don't
understand how this applies, then ignore it or barrel ahead.
