Re: Duplicated messages
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 01:36:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Same here. Though I did notice that some of the -www-cvs messages were
> > > > > > > > > coming in late (that is, messages sent earlier come later than those that
> > > > > > > > > were sent later) recently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's a common mis-feature of Qmail. If messages are queued instead of
> > > > > > > > sent out directly, it can take ages to get the Q flushed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I didn't have any problems with my MTA (that would incite queueing), and
> > > > > > > it didn't happen before IIRC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goor morning, I was talking about murphy, not your mta.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good morning, I was talking about murphy, too.
> > > >
> > > > So since when is the mta on murphy *your* mta? Did I miss something?
> > >
> > > The MTA on murphy would defer and queue messages for me if my MTA wouldn't
> > > accept the message. Maybe you are referring to something else?
> >
> > Hmm, apparently, let's waste some time and bandwidth:
> >
> > a) murphy doesn't deliver mail due to some reason
> > b) mail gets queued
> > c) murphy continues delivery
> > d) new mails will be delivered at once
> > e) queued mail will only be delivered occasionally
> > f) new new mail will be delivered at once
> > g) queued mail will only be delivered occasionally
> > etc. etc.
> >
> > So, new mail reaches the recipient at once, old mail will take
> > ages to get to the recipient.
>
> Yes, but a) didn't happen for me. (Did it?)
Quoting from the top:
> > > > > > > > > Same here. Though I did notice that some of the -www-cvs messages were
> > > > > > > > > coming in late (that is, messages sent earlier come later than those that
> > > > > > > > > were sent later) recently.
Wasn't that you?
a)-g) is an explanation for that. I guess that a) has happened,
I have no desire to eat murphy's logfiles to find that out.
Regards,
Joey
--
GNU GPL: "The source will be with you... always."
Reply to: