I would be very interested to know if that solves your problem, Eric. I can't see why it would, but since I don't (yet) understand what's wrong, I can't rule anything out. :)
Looking through the logs you gave me, I can't see why the timeout is being triggered at all. The remote server is sending data constantly, so the idle timer should be reset multiple times per second. I think it may have something to do with the exact composition of the message -- it's possible that there's a bug in the way spamdyke manipulates its buffers to hold and move data (version 3.1.6 fixed a problem like this). At the moment, I'm trying to reconstruct the message that's triggering this bug on Eric's server so I can reproduce this error myself. I haven't had any success triggering this bug by using just any large message. -- Sam Clippinger Eric Shubert wrote: > That's interesting, Paulo. I have timeoutsmtpd at 600, and nothing specified > for idle-timeout-secs. Sam's having a look at a couple of my logs. I'll be > glad to try this out if Sam gives me the word (I don't want to mess up his > debugging efforts). I wonder if idle-timeout-secs is somehow not being > initialized/defaulted properly. > > Thanks for the input Paulo. > > Paulo Henrique wrote: > >> I had a problem like this and decided putting the timeout from qmail >> less than the timeout from spamdyke, see: >> >> cat /var/qmail/control/timeoutsmtpd >> 240 >> grep idle-timeout-secs /var/qmail/control/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf >> idle-timeout-secs = 300 >> >> >> >> After that never had problem with the repetition of messages. >> >> 2008/4/22 Eric Shubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: >> >> I had a problem receiving a particular email message. It would >> always send >> the same amount of data, then timeout. The same amount of data was >> sent/received with timeouts of 60 and 180 seconds. >> >> I logged the message (great little feature of spamdyke btw), and the end >> part of the message log always shows: >> <HR align="left" SIZE=1 color=black> >> <div align="left"><font face="arial" >> size="1">14072172</font></div></td></tr></TBODY></TABLE> >> </BODY></HTML> >> >> FF> 04/22/2008 17:11:13 >> . >> QUIT >> >> <FF 04/22/2008 17:11:13 >> 421 Timeout. Talk faster next time. >> >> <XX 04/22/2008 17:11:33 >> 250 ok 1208909493 qp 11949 >> 221 doris.shubes.net <http://doris.shubes.net> - Welcome to Qmail >> Toaster Ver. 1.3 SMTP Server >> >> 04/22/2008 17:11:33 CLOSED >> >> >> Here's the smtp log for the successful receipt (with no spamdyke): >> 04-22 17:21:13 tcpserver: pid 12162 from 208.46.47.130 >> <http://208.46.47.130> >> 04-22 17:21:13 tcpserver: ok 12162 doris:192.168.71.11:25 >> <http://192.168.71.11:25> :208.46.47.130::51303 >> 04-22 17:21:13 CHKUSER accepted sender: from >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]::> remote >> <rapport.mysurvey.com:unknown:208.46.47.130 <http://208.46.47.130>> >> rcpt <> : sender accepted >> 04-22 17:21:13 CHKUSER accepted rcpt: from >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]::> remote >> <rapport.mysurvey.com:unknown:208.46.47.130 <http://208.46.47.130>> >> rcpt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> : >> found existing recipient >> 04-22 17:21:34 simscan:[12162]:CLEAN (-6.20/99.00):20.2626s:April >> Edition of >> MySurvey.com Opinion >> Matters:208.46.47.130:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 04-22 17:21:34 tcpserver: end 12162 status 0 >> >> >> After receiving the entire message, I see this portion that was received >> after the part logged by spamdyke: >> <IMG >> >> SRC="https://www.mysurvey.com/gems/gems_open_tracking.cfm?indid=14072172&cmpid=1105&r=1720290&rundate=22-APR-2008+11%3a52%3a55&z=67129618CF0844A786F0E0A6C20C49CD >> >> <https://www.mysurvey.com/gems/gems_open_tracking.cfm?indid=14072172&cmpid=1105&r=1720290&rundate=22-APR-2008+11%3a52%3a55&z=67129618CF0844A786F0E0A6C20C49CD>"border="0" >> width="1" height="1"> >> >> ------=_Layout_Part_DC7E1BB5_1105_4DB3_BAE3_2A6208EB099A-- >> >> >> Any idea why this would timeout (consistently, like clockwork) with >> spamdyke, but not without it? This message timed out all day long with >> spamdyke, but was received successfully on the first attempt without >> spamdyke. Did spamdyke somehow choke on the last bit? >> >> FWIW, it appears that the entire email was a bit hosed, as the html >> did not >> render properly in the client view (mac mail) once the entire >> message was >> received. >> >> -- >> -Eric 'shubes' >> _______________________________________________ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org <mailto:spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org> >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paulo Henrique Fonseca >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spamdyke-users mailing list >> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
