Hi all,
I have got reports about lost mail(not received, im the receiver not the
sender) recently and trying to find out whats going on seems to be beyond me.
Basically a lot of email is lost with "timeout after DATA"
For example:
timeout after DATA (0 bytes) from mail.securepay.com.au[203.89.21
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 08:15:04PM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
> Supposedly the problem here is that the sending machine has got a firewall
> in front of it thats blocking ICMP MUST FRAGMENT.
Is net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=1?
Joerg
On 14 Nov 2008, at 04:09, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Could be; look at the dmesg if you can to see if it sees the
device. It's
possible that the network device is an ath(4) chipset, in which case
you
would have to boot a kernel with it compiled in? I'm guessing.
It's an "Atheros L2 Fast Et
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Christopher Rawnsley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2008, at 04:09, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> Could be; look at the dmesg if you can to see if it sees the device. It's
>> possible that the network device is an ath(4) chipset, in which case you
>> woul
On 14 Nov 2008, at 12:09, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
Would you be interested to port it from FreeBSD? My plate is kinda
full at the moment. Please feel free to ask questions on kernel@ or
users@, if you want to do it.
I'll give it a go when I have a DF box up and running :) My driver
developme
On Fri, November 14, 2008 7:19 am, Christopher Rawnsley wrote:
> I'll give it a go when I have a DF box up and running :) My driver
> development is nil. Are there any particular drivers in the tree that
> are general enough for me to see what system calls might need to be
> changed etc? What are t
> Is net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=1?
>
> Joerg
No, it was set to 0. is it supposed to be set to 1? If so, should the default
be 1? As far as documentation goes Ive read most of modern UNIX systems have
it turned on by default.
Cheers,
Petr
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:31:55AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
> > Is net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=1?
> >
> > Joerg
>
> No, it was set to 0. is it supposed to be set to 1? If so, should the default
> be 1? As far as documentation goes Ive read most of modern UNIX systems have
> it turned on by d
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:31:55AM +1100, Petr Janda wrote:
Is net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=1?
Joerg
No, it was set to 0. is it supposed to be set to 1? If so, should the default
be 1? As far as documentation goes Ive read most of modern UNIX systems have
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:05:00PM +0200, Jordan Gordeev wrote:
> Is there a technical reason (e.g. related to where the Path MTU is
> stored), for having it off till now?
Stupid network admistrators that consider all ICMP traffic evil and
block it. But IMO it should be active by default.
Joerg
> It might help.
>
> Joerg
Ive had it on for like 6 hours now but i dont think it made a difference.
Thanks anyway.
Im welcome to more suggestions.
Petr
> Stupid network admistrators that consider all ICMP traffic evil and
> block it. But IMO it should be active by default.
>
> Joerg
I really hate the fact there is so many stupid admins who would block ICMP
because they think its evil, while they dont see the overwhelming goodness in
a protocol
12 matches
Mail list logo
