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

Re: fetchmail problem (maybe bug)



on Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 07:49:40PM -0800, Marc Wilson (msw@cox.net) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:51:37AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > I'm using fetchmail 5.9.11-6.2 from woody since a while without any problems, 
> > > but now mail retrieval fails with the following error messages:
> > > 
> > > 	fetchmail: POP3> RETR 1
> > > 	fetchmail: POP3< -ERR cannot open disk file error 2
> > > 	fetchmail: cannot open disk file error 2
> > > 	fetchmail: POP3> QUIT
> > > 	fetchmail: POP3< +OK POP3 server closing connection
> > > 	fetchmail: client/server protocol error while fetching from mail.epost.de
> > 
> > In this case, malformed headers in some spam is rejected by your local
> > MTA.  The result is that messages aren't delivered.
> 
> Uh, no, if you'll note from the direction of the arrows (and the OP's
> later message where he telnet's to the POPd), the error about the disk
> file is coming from the POP server, and has nothing to do with the
> local MTA or fetchmail itself.

Possible.  As I'd indicated, I run across this periodically.  At
unpredictable times, without access to the file in question, and
generally with a primary objective of clearing the problem and
retrieving my mail successfully.  So I may have bits wrong.

OTOH, when I've seen the error, the indication of where the problem is
has been vague.  This is consistent with posts I've seen from others.
And I resolved the problem previously by bypassing the local MTA, as
described.

> Now... why the remote might be having problems opening a disk file, I
> have no idea, but the problem isn't on the local end.

Somewhat consistent with the other characteristics described by the OP,
through.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   The golden rule of technical design:  complexity is the enemy.

Attachment: pgpd7n_ocSj6l.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: