From: Victor Duchovni (no email)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2007 - 13:05:10 EDT
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:38:38PM +0000, wrote:
> It didn't occur to me that there would be connection attempts listed
> without the queue id of the message the connects were attempted for. How
> would one, in that case, relate a connection to a message?
http://archive.netbsd.se/?ml=postfix-users&a=2007-11&m=5575252
Your anecdotal observations are flawed. Postfix makes new
connections to the MX hosts in the order supplied by DNS. Claims
to the contrary need to be backed up with detailed logging for the
transactions in question, including not only the final delivery
success/fail indication, but also any prior connection attempts
or partial deliveries.
http://archive.netbsd.se/?ml=postfix-users&a=2007-11&m=5575618
Your assessment of the probability is likely in error. Typically,
the debug logs are not needed. Just include all logging from
"postfix/smtp" (not postfix/smtpd) for a few minutes before and
after a "failure" to use the best MX hosts.
Only status=sent/bounces and final failure for status=deferred (after
exhausting all MX hosts) are logged with the queue-id. Connection attempts
are logged without the queue id, but carry the same process-id as the
final final bearer of bad news. The messages in question are those for
the same pid, that immediately precede the queue-id in question and lack
a queue-id.
-- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
|
|
|