On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:23:55PM -0700, Harry wrote:
> I got this message from one of our clients. Please help if anybody has any
> idea on this.
> From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:Mailer-Daemon@
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:10 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: War
Hello all,
I got this message from one of our clients. Please
help if anybody has any idea on this.
Thanks,
Harvinder
From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:Mailer-Daemon@> Sent: Thursday,
June 14, 2001 8:10 AM> To: > Subject: Warning: message
15AXo4-0005W6-00 delayed 60 minut
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you're running qmail configured as per
>http://www.lifewithqmail.org, then the following commands will fix the
>problem:
>
>svc -dx /service/qmail
>setlock /service/qmail/supervise/lock sh -c
>'/var/qmail/queue/*/0/{348381,348335,348013}'
For LWQ,
dgrer writes:
> Jun 14 08:28:24 seic8 qmail: 992478504.218230 warning: trouble opening
>remote/0/348013; will try again later
> ...
>
> When I enter /var/qmail/queue/remote/0/, I con not find file 348381,348335 and
>348013,
> What I showld do to deal with this prob
My qmail log always say:
Jun 14 08:24:16 seic8 qmail: 992478256.893320 warning: trouble opening
remote/0/348381; will try again later
Jun 14 08:24:16 seic8 qmail: 992478256.894017 warning: trouble opening
remote/0/348335; will try again later
Jun 14 08:24:16 seic8 qmail: 992478256.894706
"Jack McKinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> nice to be able to specify it on the command line, that way I can run
> multiple versions in order to generate, for example, a 15m warning, a 4h
> warning, and a 3d warning.
> Before I get too far into proving a race
ltiple versions in order to generate, for example, a 15m warning, a 4h
warning, and a 3d warning.
Before I get too far into proving a race condition and writing around
this, has this issue come up before?
PGP signature
Big Brother tells me that peter green wrote:
> * Jack McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010606 13:54]:
> > I have been searching the archives for this, but found nothing so
> > far.
>
> (Hint: try searching the archives on ``notify''.)
>
> [http://untroubled.org/qmail-notify/]
Thank you.
Big Brother tells me that Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Jack McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have been searching the archives for this, but found nothing so
> > far.
>
> See qmail.org. The answer is there.
As I indicated, I did search there. I found nothing. Could you be
more sp
* Jack McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010606 13:54]:
> I have been searching the archives for this, but found nothing so
> far.
(Hint: try searching the archives on ``notify''.)
> sendmail would send the sender a warning after 2 hours (actually, this
> time
Jack McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been searching the archives for this, but found nothing so
> far.
See qmail.org. The answer is there.
Charles
--
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PRO
I have been searching the archives for this, but found nothing so
far.
sendmail would send the sender a warning after 2 hours (actually, this
time was configurable) if it has been unable to send the message. Can qmail
do this? Currently, if our support staff sends a customer an email
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:41:07AM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why I'm receiving this message apart from the obvious
> 99.9% of the Qmail List messages I receive anyway.
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 195.224.255.14 does not like recipient.
> > Remote host said: 571 <[EMAIL P
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 195.224.255.14 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 571 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Relaying denied.
> Giving up on 195.224.255.14.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 05:11:56PM +0800, flint wrote:
> Dear Alex Pennace
>
> >In that case, send SIGTERM to the qmail-send process.
>
> I have tried to do so. But can you tell me where I can find PID of qmail-send
>process?
Use ps.
Dear Alex Pennace
>In that case, send SIGTERM to the qmail-send process.
I have tried to do so. But can you tell me where I can find PID of qmail-send process?
flint
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:30:17PM +0800, flint wrote:
> Dear Charles Cazabon
>
> >I take it that you are not the one that installed qmail on this system.
> >There's a thousand ways to start/stop qmail.
[snip]
> >If none of those work, see if you have /var/qmail/bin/rc -- that tells you
> >how
Dear Charles Cazabon
>I take it that you are not the one that installed qmail on this system.
>There's a thousand ways to start/stop qmail.
>
>You don't have a svc command, so it's probably not running under svscan.
>If it's installed with a SysV-like startup script, try
>/etc/rc.d/init.d/q
flint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Your problem could be ident and DNS lookup timeouts from tcpserver.
> >Investigate the possibility of turning off ident lookups, and either
> >disabling DNS lookups or fixing your DNS resolver/content server.
>
>Yes! It's really our DNS problem.
[...]
>
Dear Charles Cazabon
>Your problem could be ident and DNS lookup timeouts from tcpserver.
>Investigate the possibility of turning off ident lookups, and either
>disabling DNS lookups or fixing your DNS resolver/content server.
>
>Charles
Yes! It's really our DNS problem. Several days ago,we
Dear Charles Cazabon
>Your problem could be ident and DNS lookup timeouts from tcpserver.
>Investigate the possibility of turning off ident lookups, and either
>disabling DNS lookups or fixing your DNS resolver/content server.
>
>Charles
Yes! It's really our DNS problem. Several days ago,we
/qmail/queue/remote, but now I still can see the Warning messages in
> the maillog? Is there something wrong?
Did you run queue-fix while qmail was running? That would be bad. Stop
qmail, run queuefix, then re-start qmail.
> I have noticed for days,now it becomes more and more unbearable.
estoring from tape will completely mess this up.
>queue-fix will rename all the files to match properly.
>
>Charles
I have fix the queue using queue-fix. It unlinked some file under
/var/qmail/queue/remote,
but now I still can see the Warning messages in the maillog? Is there something wr
flint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Today,I saw there were many messages like this in the maillog:
> >> 982653149.920320 warning: trouble opening remote/4/r
> >Your queue is corrupt. Did you manually remove any messages from the queue?
> >Get qmail-
>> Today,I saw there were many messages like this in the maillog:
>> 982653149.920320 warning: trouble opening remote/4/r
>Your queue is corrupt. Did you manually remove any messages from the queue?
>Get qmail-queuefix from www.qmail.org to fix this.
>Charles
Tha
flint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Today,I saw there were many messages like this in the maillog:
> 982653149.920320 warning: trouble opening remote/4/r
Your queue is corrupt. Did you manually remove any messages from the queue?
Get qmail-queuefix from www.qmail.org to fix
Hi everybody,
Today,I saw there were many messages like this in the maillog:
982653149.920320 warning: trouble opening remote/4/r
Who can tell me what those mean? Thanks
flint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everybody,
Today,I saw there were many messages like this in the maillog:
982653149.920320 warning: trouble opening remote/4/r
Who can tell me what those mean? Thanks
flint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Rembrandt Lensink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: WARNING
> Dan, Why did you need to post that message as html as if the original is
> *distracting* enough?? plain text
OTECTED]>
>
> *Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 11, 2001 3:37 PM
>
> *Subject:* WARNING
>
>
> _Stop sending us your hahaha Snowhite and the 7 Dwarfs E-mail virus
> or we will chase you and attack your system!!!_
>
- Original Message -
From: Dan Egli
To: Rembrandt Lensink ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: WARNING
Dude,
The person sending the virus likely has no idea he
(or she) is sending it. The virus infects your winsock32
ruary 11, 2001 3:37
PM
Subject: WARNING
Stop
sending us your hahaha Snowhite and the 7 Dwarfs E-mail virus or we will chase
you and attack your system!!!
- Original Message -
From: Rembrandt
Lensink
To: Tim Hunter
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: WARNING Snowhite
Dear Tim, Sorry again for the
inconvenience. It was some wild shooting into the dark, an impulsive reaction of
somebody new
*blink blink*
Uhm..
Nevermind..
Rembrandt Lensink wrote:
> _Stop sending us your hahaha Snowhite and the 7 Dwarfs E-mail virus or
> we will chase you and attack your system!!!_
>
Stop
sending us your hahaha Snowhite and the 7 Dwarfs E-mail virus or we will chase
you and attack your system!!!
On or about 06:18 PM 2/8/01 -0700, Sean Reifschneider was caught in a dark
alley speaking these words:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:02:06PM -0800, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
>>I'm pretty sure this is the work of the W95.Hybrid email worm (the
>>sexyfun.net one), sending copies of itself to the mail2new
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:02:06PM -0800, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
>I'm pretty sure this is the work of the W95.Hybrid email worm (the
>sexyfun.net one), sending copies of itself to the mail2news gateway
What triggered the sudden hit then? sexyfun has been around for
quite a while and the mail ser
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:51:40PM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Anyone else seeing thousands of messages filling up your queue, apparently
> from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to addresses such as:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeap, I've seen that one, but didn't pay much attention to it...
I thought it
Quoting Sean Reifschneider ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Anyone else seeing thousands of messages filling up your queue, apparently
> from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to addresses such as:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm pretty sure this is the work of the W95.Hybrid email worm (the
sexyfun.net one), sending copi
Anyone else seeing thousands of messages filling up your queue, apparently
from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to addresses such as:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks like this has started within the hour. Looks like one of our
clients got hit with about 6000 of them, and they're still coming
in.
We're currentl
Antonio Ferri Charbone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I need to know whay mean the following message:
>
> 980850635.808667 warning: trouble opening local/9/41501; will try again
> later
Possibly your queue is corrupted. Did you modify or remove any files from
under
Hi,
I need to know whay mean the following message:
980850635.808667 warning: trouble opening local/9/41501; will try again
later
Thanks and regards.
begin:vcard
n:Ferri Charbone;Antonio
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Telcel Celular C.A.;Gerencia de Operaciones
adr:;;
version:2.1
email
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: warning: unknown record type in todo/67391
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:41:34AM +0100, octave klaba wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see in the log file a strange warning. what does it mean ?
>
> # cat /var/log/qmail/current | grep 67391
> @40003a72a5f52ec6
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:41:34AM +0100, octave klaba wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see in the log file a strange warning. what does it mean ?
>
> # cat /var/log/qmail/current | grep 67391
> @40003a72a5f52ec6ad94 new msg 67391
> @40003a72a5f52ec6c504 warning: unknown reco
Hello,
I see in the log file a strange warning. what does it mean ?
# cat /var/log/qmail/current | grep 67391
@40003a72a5f52ec6ad94 new msg 67391
@40003a72a5f52ec6c504 warning: unknown record type in todo/67391
@40003a72a5f53015af4c new msg 67391
@40003a72a5f53015b71c warning
Peter Drahos writes:
> Hi,
>
> Can anybody explain to me what these warnings mean and why do the
> files(e-mails) with no group appear in a first place and are being
> deleted???
>
> Tx Peter
>
> Jan 17 04:45:14 ebox : Security Warning : Group Unowned files fou
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 12:15:33AM -0500, Peter Drahos wrote:
> At 12:02 AM 1/18/01 -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:02:21PM -0500, Peter Drahos wrote:
> > > Jan 17 04:45:14 ebox : Security Warning : Group Unowned files found :
> > > Jan 17 04:
the
> > files(e-mails) with no group appear in a first place and are being
> deleted???
> >
> > Tx Peter
> >
> > Jan 17 04:45:14 ebox : Security Warning : Group Unowned files found :
> > Jan 17 04:45:15 ebox : ( theses files now have group "nogroup" as their
> > group owner. )
>
>Those aren't messages generated by qmail.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:02:21PM -0500, Peter Drahos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anybody explain to me what these warnings mean and why do the
> files(e-mails) with no group appear in a first place and are being deleted???
>
> Tx Peter
>
> Jan 17 04:45:14 ebox : Security
Hi,
Can anybody explain to me what these warnings mean and why do the
files(e-mails) with no group appear in a first place and are being deleted???
Tx Peter
Jan 17 04:45:14 ebox : Security Warning : Group Unowned files found :
Jan 17 04:45:15 ebox : ( theses files now have group "nogrou
There is a lot of email in the archives of this list complaining about
things such as
warning: unable to unlink local/9/3601004; will try again later
I saw this too, (running with the rpms made by Bruce Guenter E<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
I investigated what was going on. The key is to l
help would be great
thanks
Neil
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:56 AM
Subject: ezmlm warning
> Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
>
>
&
All mail I retrieve from the pop server come with the following header
line:
X-Fetchmail-Warning: recipiente address [EMAIL PROTECTED] didn't match
any local name
Also, I've been playing with the control files and every mail I send to
one of my addresses ends up in the spool mail/
Hajime Lucky Okada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"qmail: 962478354.405231 warning: trouble opening local/22/1105816;
>will try again later"
>
>Many massage like this are appearing in the log forever
>What is occurring and how to eliminate them?
Sounds like you
Hello!
Would you please give me advice for some questions?
-
1. Now I'm confused with following message in the maillog.
"qmail: 962478354.405231 warning: trouble opening local/22/1105816; will try again
later"
Many massage like this a
H,
At 13:42 08.06.2000 -0400, Jim Simmons wrote:
>To stop it from making this change, I believe you can edit
>/usr/lib/linuxconf/redhat/perm and remove the /usr/sbin/sendmail line.
Thanks for the hint, I found the file where linuxconf takes its
information. Here a diff for qmail installation:
--
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Jim Simmons wrote:
> It isn't the rpm's fault, it is actually linuxconf. Even if you did a
> by-the-book (i.e. following Dan's instructions to the letter) qmail install,
> linuxconf will follow the /usr/sbin/sendmail link and change the permissions
> on /
Hi,
I think it's also possible to disable the sendmail module in linuxconf.
regards
christian
It isn't the rpm's fault, it is actually linuxconf. Even if you did a
by-the-book (i.e. following Dan's instructions to the letter) qmail install,
linuxconf will follow the /usr/sbin/sendmail link and change the permissions
on /var/qmail/bin/sendmail for you. It does this even if you don't have
000 12:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Security warning: using linuxconf(RedHat 6.2) and permissions
of /usr/sbin/sendmail
Importance: High
Hi,
some days ago another guy mentioned that he has detected wrong permissions
on his RedHat system using
qmail at the wrapper "/usr/sbin/sendmail&
Hi,
some days ago another guy mentioned that he has detected wrong permissions
on his RedHat system using
qmail at the wrapper "/usr/sbin/sendmail".
I have reproduced this on 2 systems:
Scenario:
RedHat 6.2 (including linuxconf 1.17r2)
sendmail-RPM deinstall
qmail-SRPM
> At 12:07 04/05/00 +0300, R.Ilker Gokhan wrote:
>
> > >SUBJECT: ILOVEYOU
> > >
> > > YOU MUST DELETE IT BEFORE OPEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR OS IS WINDOWS !
> > >
but how can i open after i delete it?
oh sorry - you can if you use windows :-)
>
> http://www.hinterlands.org/iloveyou.htm
At 12:07 04/05/00 +0300, R.Ilker Gokhan wrote:
> >SUBJECT: ILOVEYOU
> >
> > YOU MUST DELETE IT BEFORE OPEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR OS IS WINDOWS !
> >
http://www.hinterlands.org/iloveyou.html
Martin A. Brooks
The package said Windows NT 4 or better - I
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
>If you notice.. The date on the mail is Thursday... Some mailer somewhere
>held it up in transit it would appear..
Or the date on his computer is wrong... :-)
Andy
-
+- Andy --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -+
| Grea
>Subject: Re: VIRUS WARNING!!!
>
>LOL,
>Your a little late on this one!
Seriously though, would people in this newsgroup appreciate more heads-up
warnings like this (only a bit more timely!). I believe my company were
the first AV company in the world to detect this virus (Wed 3r
ssage-
> From: Alan Day [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 1:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING!!!
>
> Thanks for the heads up. Any news on the impending release of Windows 3.1
> ?
>
> ---
Title: VIRUS WARNING!!!
Thanks
for the heads up. Any news on the impending release of Windows 3.1
?
-Original Message-From: R.Ilker Gokhan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 4:07
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: VIRUS
t: Re: VIRUS WARNING!!!
LOL,
Your a little late on this one!
Bryan Hundven
- Original Message -
From: R.Ilker Gokhan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 2:07 AM
Subject: VIRUS WARNING!!!
>SUBJECT: ILOVEYOU
>
> YOU MU
Title: VIRUS WARNING!!!
LOL,
Your a little late on this one!
Bryan Hundven
- Original Message -
From:
R.Ilker
Gokhan
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 2:07
AM
Subject: VIRUS WARNING!!!
>SUBJ
Title: VIRUS WARNING!!!
>SUBJECT: ILOVEYOU
>
> YOU MUST DELETE IT BEFORE OPEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR OS IS WINDOWS !
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > It's also temporarily available as
> > > http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
> > > show up too soon, I'll change the link to point to my server.
>
> (ring ring - Uhhh, hello?) My ISP has changed a couple of times since
>
> Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Chris Hardie writes:
> > > Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please
> > > pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
> >
> > It's also temporarily available as
> > http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If B
I finally sorted out and fixed my X-Spam-Warning header patch. It adds
warning headers for ORBS, RSS, RBL and DUL without the use of any
external programs. It's against a Debianized 1.02 source tree, but is
fairly trivial so I imagine it'll easily apply to 1.03.
Linked off http://ww
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Chris Hardie writes:
> > Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please
> > pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
>
> It's also temporarily available as
> http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Rogerio Brito wrote:
>
> If you're considering less than seven days for queuelifetime,
> do set it to at least four days -- it's frequently the case
> where a message was not delivered because some computer failed
> on a Friday afternoon and it can onl
Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, three days may be a little short. Or should this mean that
> secondary MXs, once fought against begin to become a necessary
> condition?
I use secondary MXes for all of my e-mail precisely because I want control
over the queuing i
On Apr 25 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd also significantly reduce the queue lifetime; honestly, if the
> message can't be delivered in two or three days, most e-mail users
> these days seem to have already concluded it will never get there
> and get really confused when it comes through.
on the Internet
to upgrade to the new protocol. A quick cost/benefit analysis shows
that it ain't gonna happen.
>In the case of a failure to deliver, the user will not get *any* warning
>about it until queuelifetime has passed. I think that the option to have
>qmail (or a plug
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> this was my point earlier, you can't always count on getting an error
>> message if there is an error, because there's _always_ a chance that
>> the message will be lost without a trace. so if you do make errors
Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the case of a failure to deliver, the user will not get *any* warning
> about it until queuelifetime has passed. I think that the option to have
> qmail (or a plug-in or add-on program) deliver a message back to the
> user statin
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Qmail-List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon 24 Apr 2000 13:47
Subject: Re: temporary failure warning message
> > As things stand with qmail right now, a user sending mail thro
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 02:02:13PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote:
> Could you elaborate on the part about such messages being annoying to
> administrators?
Administrators use email too.
--Adam
Chris Hardie writes:
> Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please
> pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
It's also temporarily available as
http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
show up too soon, I'll change the link to point to my se
ow, a user sending mail through qmail
> gets one of three things:
>
> 1) A successful delivery.
> 2) A bounce message (liable to happen within a few minutes under most
> circumstances).
> 3) An eventual failure (which takes queuelifetime).
you forgot the possibility of
4) Message gets
On 24 Apr 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is
> good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say
> ``I need to know about this message, but not about this other
> message.'' It doesn't tell me ``it's been a hou
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:31:49PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is
> good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say
> ``I need to know about this message, but not about this other
> message.'' It doesn't
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:38:01PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote:
> This isn't necessarily a qmail feature request, since I can see a strong
> case to be made for having this be an add-on. But it is a dissenting view
> that I thought should be aired, because I'd like to counterbalance the view
> I s
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:17:27 -0400
From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was
that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you
want implemented:
That feature is reliability from t
livery.
2) A bounce message (liable to happen within a few minutes under most
circumstances).
3) An eventual failure (which takes queuelifetime).
In the case of a failure to deliver, the user will not get *any* warning
about it until queuelifetime has passed. I think that the option to have
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:02:53PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I haven't said what I want, beyond something better than the current
> situation, so this response does not seem to be to the point unless
> you think the current situation is ideal.
>
> I am trying to come up with something myse
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by
> > default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week.
>
>I would be interesting to see (someone else do :) a study of the time
>in the queue
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Why bother sending a bounce message at all, then?
to help diagnose the problem? you send an e-mail to the only person who's
address you know for sure, the sender, and he can fix the problem if it's on
his end, or let the recipient into the problem if it's on their end
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:33:58PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> You seem to be saying that there is no point to improving something
> unless we can make it perfect. However, I think we can all agree that
> in this world nothing is ever perfect. Therefore, you seem to be
> saying that we shou
From: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:37:14 -0400
Not at all. Dave said, ``simply because they didn't receive a
warning...'' In other words, you can't assume the message was
received, simply because you WEREN'T
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:26:00 -0400
From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the person could just simply not
be checking their e-mail, or you could've mistyped the address, or a million
other things, so you just plain can't depend on the system, but the more
checks you put in
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Anyone who assumes that An Important Mail has been delivered intact
>and read by the recipient simply because they didn't receive a
>warning or bounce message deserves
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:05:37 -0400
>From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>actually it's more the nature of our existance - nothing can be
>guaranteed with absolute certainty, so you need to check everything...
>
> But that's why we have computers--
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by
> default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week.
I would be interesting to see (someone else do :) a study of the time
in the queue vs. success in delivery. How profitable is it to
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:05:37 -0400
From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
actually it's more the nature of our existance - nothing can be
guaranteed with absolute certainty, so you need to check everything...
But that's why we have computers--to check things for us.
You can't ch
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>How often have you heard somebody say ``You
>didn't get my fax? I guess the Telco server was down.''
Ever pick up the phone and not get a dialtone? Dial a number and get
the "fast busy signal" tha
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
