On 7 Feb, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
| At 19:14 2002-02-07 +0900, Nelson Henry Eric wrote:
|
| >My point is that there are ALWAYS transient DNS or network problems, at
| >least from about January 4, 2002.
|
| Talk to your network people and ask "what changed?" [...]
|
| It is neither a procmail issue or an issue with the list server for this
| discussion list, which is configured much like any other sendmail config
| with an intent on eliminating spew - refusing to accept mail from hosts
| which do not resolve is a pretty basic sendmail rule, and isn't uncommon in
| recent (as in distros < 3 years old) sendmails.
I have no dispute with any of Sean's analysis. The point about a single
name server for the domain in question is especially on target. But I'm
not quite as quick to dismiss hera.cuci.nl from having *any* blame
here. Something obviously changed in their configuration late last year,
and they have been the cause of some problems. Those problems might be
as innocuous as error messages that don't match the error codes, or
they may be worse. There's no way to know since postmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
is a
black hole. And of course incorrect error messages aren't innocuous
when you're the recipient, you're trying to chase them down, and there's
no answer from the other end. Let's not forget that hera.cuci.nl (or
some other host in cuci.nl affecting this list, I don't recall) managed
to get themselves black holed at orbz, so they're not necessarily above
reproach.
All of that might have exactly nothing to do with Henry's problem, but
it's at least curious that the timing roughly corresponds to other
problems observed by list subscribers and that were apparently caused by
hera.cuci.nl. The fact that mail to postmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl silently
disappears into the ether doesn't help. Maybe rfc-ignorant.org has it
wrong. If those messages bounced, I'd *know* they're not being read.
Creating the postmaster@ address for rfc compliance, then bit-bucketing
everything that comes in doesn't seem to me to be very helpful.
--
Reply to list please, or append "6" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail