Jeremy Harris wrote:
>
> Does this imply that Exim+SA isn't doing a proper handshake around
> the SMTP-dot-after-DATA? Or that MSN isn't?
> Why does Exim think it has accepted the message, when MSN does not?
It's pretty much a design flaw in the SMTP protocol. At least it errs on
the side of dup
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
>
> Clearly the "problem" on my end is that the machine in question is
> only 64MB and doing Sophos, ClamAV, and SpamAssassin scanning.
SpamAssassin is a HUGE memory hog. You absolutely must ensure that your
machine is not swapping any of the memory it
Chris Blaise wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Balzer
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:03 AM
>>To: exim-users@exim.org
>>Subject: Re: [exim] Incoming duplicates
>>
>>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Jeremy Harris wrote:
|
| Why does Exim think it has accepted the message, when MSN does not?
|
By the time Exim gives the 2xx response to DATA, MSN has already timed-out.
RFC 1047 discusses this in detail.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-use
Chris Blaise wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Balzer
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:03 AM
>> To: exim-users@exim.org
>> Subject: Re: [exim] Incoming duplicates
>>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
| Clearly the "problem" on my end is that the machine in question is
| only 64MB and doing Sophos, ClamAV, and SpamAssassin scanning.
You're calling SpamAssassin via spamd, right ?
Perhaps try turning off the SpamAssassin network tests, as something
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Balzer
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:03 AM
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Subject: Re: [exim] Incoming duplicates
>
>
> I can confirm this MSN behavior, one r
Tony Finch wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
[MSN happily ignoring RFC timeouts]
>> And/or is there a built-in way deal with this situation?
>
>The only way is to ensure that your machine is meaty enough to scan email
>quickly. In particular you should ensure that SpamAssassin is tu
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Chris Blaise wrote:
>
> 2006-07-28 07:23:11 1G6SGG-0007wS-Bh <= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That shows a delay of 175 seconds, based on the timestamp in the message
ID (which is generated after Exim receives the message header), and the
more readable log line timestamp (generated after
One of my systems is receiving duplicates of the same message from
certain remote servers.
It does both spam and AV scanning in the DATA acl. According to the
exim log id field, it's the same message:
2006-07-28 07:23:11 1G6SGG-0007wS-Bh <= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
H=(bay0-om
10 matches
Mail list logo