[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is everyone else seeing duplicates? -- nope

On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:58:28PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya mark
> duplicates ( to you) from me is probably just my reply to you and the
> deb list... you may or may not ( but probably will ) get 2 copies of this
> email...depends on how the mta is configured ...
> otherwise... i dont see duplicates
You know, they seem to have stopped now and I still don't know why.  And
I am not talking about the simple duplicates that result from someone
CCing you as well as sending the mail to the list.  I was seeing tons of
duplicate mails from people just generally sending to the list on other
topics too.

Now I have been fiddling with my firewall today and I changed two rules:
I god rid of the rule for logging unclean packets - this was causing
heaps of eroneous logs since I upgraded to a 2.4.14 (from 2.4.4) kernel.
There is apparently a bug in the 2.4.14 kernel that caused this - so I
just commented out this rule - which wasn't really necessary anyway.
#$IPTABLES -A INPUT -i $EXT_IF -m unclean -j log_unclean
(log_unclean - just logs and then drops the packets)

I added a rule to REJECT connection attempts to my ident port rather
than just DROPping the packets.  This means that I don't get 5 logs
resulting from the debian mail server trying to identify me everytime I
send an email to the debian-user list.  Here is this rule:
$IPTABLES -A INPUT -i $EXT_IF -p tcp --dport $IDENT_PORT -j log_reject
(log_reject just logs and then rejects the packet)

I can't for the life of me think why this may have caused me to get
duplicate mails.  Perhaps something to do with the - unclean packets?
Maybe because they were DROPped that caused the mail server at the other
end to re-send the whole message again?

I haven't changed anything in my fetchmailrc, /etc/postfix/main.cf, or
.procmailrc files.  And yet it seems to have stopped now.

Very confusing?


Attachment: pgplPAsnxa3Ev.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: