procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Postmaster(_at_)mail(_dot_)foxcomm(_dot_)net: I am refusing mail from you (Mail System Error - Returned Mail)

1997-06-25 17:48:00

I have received 10 copies of this bounce today. (see below)

I sent ONE message to this person (actually it went through the procmail  
mailing list).

I have tried to report this to the Postmaster, and gotten MORE bounces from you.

If you cannot correctly deal with your mail box sizes (is it a good idea for  
the POSTMASTER to have a mailbox limit???) then I have no reason to accept  
your mail.

I have cc'd this to my sysadmin (in case you ever fix this, you can contact  
them and get off my bounce list) and the procmail mailing list (I expect  
others are experiencing problems with this user also).

TjL


Begin forwarded message:

To: luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
From: Mail Administrator<Postmaster(_at_)mail(_dot_)foxcomm(_dot_)net>
Reply-To: Mail Administrator<Postmaster(_at_)mail(_dot_)foxcomm(_dot_)net>
Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:02:52 -0700

This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:

One or more of the recipients of your message did not receive it
because they would have exceeded their mailbox size limit.  It
may be possible for you to successfully send your message again
at a later time; however, if it is large, it is recommended that
you first contact the recipients to confirm that the space will be
available for your message when you send it.

No storage space available in mailbox for rquayle(_at_)foxcomm(_dot_)net

The following recipients haven't received this message:

     rquayle(_at_)foxcomm(_dot_)net

Please reply to Postmaster(_at_)mail(_dot_)foxcomm(_dot_)net
if you feel this message to be in error.

----------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:47 -1000
From: luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
To: rquayle(_at_)foxcomm(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: Waiting

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Philip Guenther wrote:

Timothy J Luoma <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org> writes:

NeXTStep uses a program called 'appnmail' that does its own locking, but I  
still (being paranoid) want to make sure that it still waits until the
previous job is done....

all I need to do is add the "W" flag, right?

No, the 'W' flag would tell procmail that even if appnmail dies a horrible
death, it should act like it succeeded.  Not what you want.

Well, I'm pretty sure that appnmail will tell me (via the log) if it dies
a horrible death (I've yet to see that in 2 years of pretty intense usage)

I'm not so concerned about the end result of appnmail as I don't want
them trying to grab from each other...

I've been using the "W" flag without incident so far...

Since if appnmail screws up, your entire mailbox will be hosed, I would
suggest not bothering.  Multiple lockfiles are one of those things you
(almost) never do

Does the 'W' flag use a lockfile of some sort?  If so I didn't realize
it....

TjL

--
TjL <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>   / <http://www.peak.org/~luomat/next/
NeXT bookmarks: <http://www.peak.org/~luomat/next/bookmarks.html
*** Starting July 2nd I will be taking Hebrew.  Email and Usenet
    response time will be noticeably slower.  ***



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>