while
sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once
that means your mail tried to sent mail to remote server
relaysmtp02.hsbc.com.ar[200.5.78.42], but the remote server has dropped
connection.
your server keeps that message but remote server has "accepted" message
while n
a few months ago the following error began to occur with some domains,
although the mail does reach the recipient, so he receives hundreds of
repetitions of the same mail
conversation with relaysmtp02.hsbc.com.ar[200.5.78.42] timed out while
sending end of data -- message may be sent more
On 12 Aug 2018, at 16:50, Thomas Kristensen wrote:
Hey
I got this strange problem with postfix 3.1.0.
I got this one server that doesn't get all the mails, queued for it.
Some mails gets the error in subject.
And if I do a tcpdump on the tcp stream I see this everytime:
(the content has
On 12.08.18 20:50, Thomas Kristensen wrote:
Subject: Timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent more
than once
I got this strange problem with postfix 3.1.0.
I got this one server that doesn't get all the mails, queued for it. Some mails
gets the error in subject.
And if I do
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 08:50:19PM +, Thomas Kristensen wrote:
> DATA
> 354 [794178adb94846f8975ac93c9a320e4a] Start mail input; end with
> .
> Received: from Server (unknown [(removed)])
> by Server (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41pBtg5rKGzqYnC
> for (removed); Sun, 12 Aug 2018
Invalid mimetype?
milter out of mem or temp storage?
boundary_274246_f400b577-4e93-4ffd-b5ec-355c7a0b5059
Content-Type: application
.
Hey
I got this strange problem with postfix 3.1.0.
I got this one server that doesn't get all the mails, queued for it. Some mails
gets the error in subject.
And if I do a tcpdump on the tcp stream I see this everytime:
(the content has been wiped for some information)
220
[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C: conversation with
mail.vivantes.de[62.220.2.98] timed out while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C:
to=recipi...@vivantes.de, relay=mail1.vivantes.de[62.220.2.99]:25, delay=601,
delays=0.01
, size=36991, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C: conversation with
mail.vivantes.de[62.220.2.98] timed out while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C:
to=recipi
]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C:
from=sen...@charite.de, size=36991, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C: conversation
with mail.vivantes.de[62.220.2.98] timed out while sending end of data --
message may be sent more than once
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134
=36991, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C: conversation with
mail.vivantes.de[62.220.2.98] timed out while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
Sep 11 09:31:23 mail2 postfix/smtp[22134]: 3cZZKZ2WvdzBt9C:
to=recipi
* Wietse Venema postfix-users@postfix.org:
Delivery fails to the primary MX host (mail.vivantes.de) and then
it succeeds to the secondary MX host. Why should Postfix wait when
it switches from primary to secondary MX?
PEBCAK (on my side here).
--
[*] sys4 AG
http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90
-- message may be sent more than once)
My understanding is that the first message is the original, and the
second and subsequent are postfix retrying the delivery.
my postconf -n output follows below,
Your message probably hit one of several Cisco PIX/ASA bugs
related to mail header section parsing
-- message may be sent more than once)
.
.
Oct 5 01:20:10 myhost postfix/qmgr[18862]: 125BC2400A7:
from=john@xyz.tld, size=2760, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Oct 5 01:20:10 myhost postfix/smtp[30509]: 125BC2400A7: enabling PIX
workarounds: disable_esmtp delay_dotcrlf for
mail.abc.tld[123.456.789.123]:25
]
timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than
once)
.
.
Oct 5 01:20:10 myhost postfix/qmgr[18862]: 125BC2400A7:
from=john@xyz.tld, size=2760, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Oct 5 01:20:10 myhost postfix/smtp[30509]: 125BC2400A7: enabling
PIX workarounds: disable_esmtp
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:39:11 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
it is ?, oh
Am 15.06.2011 08:39, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
but what if there are
On Wednesday June 15 2011 05:42:36 Noel Jones wrote:
At this time I'm inclined to set this aside. The DKIM bug
doesn't seem to be widespread; there is no compelling case to
add a new workaround right now.
Indeed the situation has much improved in the past year or two.
Many sites have turned
Victor Duchovni:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen are not
obviously such)
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
Solution:
=
master.cf:
nodkimunix - - - - - smtp -o
smtp_header_checks=pcre:/etc/postfix/no_dkim.pcre
main.cf:
transport_maps =
On 6/14/2011 8:34 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
Solution:
=
master.cf:
nodkimunix - - - - - smtp -o
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to smtp_pix_workarounds!
--
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:48:54PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to smtp_pix_workarounds!
How does an SMTP client recognize an ASA box before it breaks email?
Only from the /^[02 *]+$/ banner.
# telnet mx.interfree.it 25
Trying 213.158.72.46...
Connected to mx.interfree.it.
Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to smtp_pix_workarounds!
How does an SMTP client recognize an ASA box before it breaks email?
Only from the /^[02 *]+$/ banner.
# telnet mx.interfree.it 25
Trying 213.158.72.46...
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:18:43PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
# telnet mailamir.com 25
Trying 114.31.73.44...
Connected to mailamir.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 **
Hmm...
% telnet mailamir.com 25
Trying 114.31.73.44...
Connected to mailamir.com.
Ralf wrote:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
But you already knew that! :)
ASA bug CSCsy28792 and a couple of related header-parsing bugs,
triggered by encountering a content-type or content-transfer-encoding
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
A Postfix system with a PIX in front of it and STARTTLS censored as
XXXA (same length).
Yes, thought so too.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin
* Mark Martinec mark.martinec+post...@ijs.si:
Ralf wrote:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
But you already knew that! :)
Yes I know.
ASA bug CSCsy28792 and a couple of related header-parsing bugs,
How does an SMTP client recognize an ASA box before it breaks email?
Only from the /^[02 *]+$/ banner.
# telnet mx.interfree.it 25
220 **
I think the newer versions of ASA can be configured to let ESMTP pass through
without
* Mark Martinec mark.martinec+post...@ijs.si:
I think the newer versions of ASA can be configured to let ESMTP pass
through without censoring the greeting, while still exhibiting one of
the header parsing bugs - which can lead to dropping the TCP session
without a RST (but with a message in
Am 14.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
Solution:
=
master.cf:
nodkimunix - - - - - smtp -o
Am 14.06.2011 20:48, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Mark Martinec mark.martinec+post...@ijs.si:
I think the newer versions of ASA can be configured to let ESMTP pass
through without censoring the greeting, while still exhibiting one of
the header parsing bugs - which can lead to dropping the
Wietse Venema:
Hmm...
% telnet mailamir.com 25
Trying 114.31.73.44...
Connected to mailamir.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 **
help
502 5.5.2 Error: command not recognized
FYI, this is how I quickly identify Postfix MTAs.
Wietse
* Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
make it more public , firewall admins may awake, in germany heise
postings help sometimes *g
For that one would need large scale statistics.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:48:54 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Yeah. Maybe
On 6/14/2011 5:49 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:48:54 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while
ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same
problem and
came up with the
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:32:39 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
C) use existing smtp_header_checks solution.
extend to smtp_header_checks_maps, and then use any maps postfix
support
is smtp_header_checks already pr recipients server ?
On 6/14/2011 7:42 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:32:39 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
C) use existing smtp_header_checks solution.
extend to smtp_header_checks_maps, and then use any maps
postfix support
That's an interesting idea in itself, but in the scope of pix
workarounds
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen are not
obviously such) one still needs manual
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:05:24 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
That's an interesting idea in itself, but in the scope of pix
workarounds it's not a huge improvement since it still requires
manual
intervention per server/domain.
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just
On 6/14/2011 8:22 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen
On 2011-02-24 13:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
Stanisław Findeisen:
Hi
I am getting such errors in the log:
Feb 24 10:03:21 * postfix/smtp[9203]: C2EFF1823C1: lost connection with
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.43.27] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
This happens
Hi
I am getting such errors in the log:
Feb 24 10:03:21 * postfix/smtp[9203]: C2EFF1823C1: lost connection with
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.43.27] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
This happens many times a day with various servers --- not just
google.com. Otherwise
Stanis??aw Findeisen:
Hi
I am getting such errors in the log:
Feb 24 10:03:21 * postfix/smtp[9203]: C2EFF1823C1: lost connection with
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.43.27] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
This happens many times a day with various servers
On Thursday 23 April 2009 10:02:29 Jørn Odberg wrote:
I can now see that the recieving side has an ESTABLISHED connection from
the sender, even after the sender tell me it has lost the connection
with the reciever. So it seems like something in the middle is forcing
the connection to a
Hello again.
I can now see that the recieving side has an ESTABLISHED connection from
the sender, even after the sender tell me it has lost the connection
with the reciever. So it seems like something in the middle is forcing
the connection to a close...
I have now captured some more
?) will not deliver... It takes a minute or two, and
then I receive conversation with NotBib(..and the rest of the domain)
timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once.
I have tried sending a mail with a size of 1589 from NotBib to BamBib,
with debugging turned on inside main.cf
Would I need to do this at the sender or the receiver? Or both ends?
Thanks for the reply, Wietse. And thanks for Postfix. :-)
Kind regards from Norway,
Jørn Odberg
Wietse Venema skrev:
Turn off TCP window scaling.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tcp+window+scaling
Wietse
--
Turn off TCP window scaling.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tcp+window+scaling
Wietse
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Jørn Odberg wrote:
Would I need to do this at the sender or the receiver? Or both ends?
Do it on your end, which is what you control.
--
Sahil Tandon sa...@tandon.net
Hello Sahil, and thanks for your reply.
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and
the receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity
or Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling at both ends, but it did not
2009/4/22 Jørn Odberg j...@bibsyst.no:
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and the
receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity or
Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling at both ends, but it did not
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:57:30PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and the
receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity or
Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling
J?rn Odberg:
Would I need to do this at the sender or the receiver? Or both ends?
You can run tcpdump at one end first. If we can't figure out what
is happening, then we may also need the other end to see if
something is messing around with the packets.
Some firewalls have incomplete TCP
Jørn,
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and
the receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity
or Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling at both ends, but it did not help at
all. It still won't
end of data -- message
may be sent more than once)
the above is from my relay;
while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once) what does
this mean?
with
mail.WhereverStormy.com[173.46.193.75] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once)
the above is from my relay;
while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once) what does
this mean?
It means that the connection to mail.WhereverStormy.com has been lost
while sending end
] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once)
the above is from my relay;
while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once) what does
this mean?
You did not read the first part of the error message:
(lost connection with ... while sending end of data
61 matches
Mail list logo
