From: Ralf Hildebrandt (no email)
Date: Mon Jul 01 2002 - 16:59:28 EDT
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:56:20PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
> Jul 1 15:55:12 rack4 postfix/qmgr[6337]: 72025F5: from=<>, size=508, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> Jul 1 15:55:12 rack4 postfix/smtpd[6364]: disconnect from vega.ipal.net[209.102.192.64]
> Jul 1 15:55:12 rack4 postfix/local[6367]: 72025F5: to=<>, relay=local, delay=0, status=bounced (unknown user: "ka9wgn")
At least we now know that "local" is involved.
Wasn't the whole idea NOT to use "local" but some other LDA, like
"virtual"?
-- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V A) Charite Campus Virchow-Klinikum Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V A - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 I wish you'd tell me what kind of systems they're using instead, because HP can't be doing much worse than Sun "would you like the compiler or internet options with that" Microsystems, or Silicon "hey be glad the support-contract number isn't a 1-900" Graphics. Then there's Digital "It sucks in 64 bits, you can't suck in 64 bits anywhere else" Equipment Corp (Did we mention it's 64 bits?). - To unsubscribe, send mail to with content (not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users
|
|
|