On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 06:57 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Lindsay Haisley writes: > > > The headers you sent reflect this. It looks as if Mailman on your end > > didn't cancel the held message, or it was moderated through as I was > > canceling it. > > You also cc-ed your reply to me, the copy that I got was the CC copy.
Please accept my apology. I know it's bad form to CC a poster when replying to a list post. I always try to cover this base, but sometimes I slip up. This is doubtless how the duplicate came through to you. I hope it's a non-issue going forward and I'll try to be more careful. > > The situation with the post under discussion - posted to the > > mailman-users list - is different. Both posts were sent over the same > > email address, and both Date headers are the same. > > The first Received: header in them is different, though: > > Received: from [192.168.1.17] ([::ffff:10.8.0.4]) by shakti.fmp.com with > esmtp; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:11:57 -0500 id > 000000000027586D.0000000050318EDD.00006F31 > > Received: from [192.168.1.17] ([::ffff:10.8.0.4]) by shakti.fmp.com with > esmtp; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:13:05 -0500 id > 00000000002758BD.0000000050318F21.00006FAC That's correct. They differ in timestamps and in the server-assigned Message ID, which is what one would expect if the message were held in the outbox on the MUA and tried again later, which is what I assume happened. My original conclusion, which I can find no reason to question, is that this is the sequence of events. * MUA sends msg to Courier - Courier accepts it and assigns msg ID ending in F31 * Courier tries to send msg to recipient, gets a tempfail (450) and queue's the msg. * For some reason, which we don't know, _MUA_ caches the msg, probably in the outbox, and sends it successfully a minute later. Courier considers this a new message and assigns new msg ID ending in FAC. * Courier successfully relays the FAC message to the recipient. * Four minutes later, Courier pulls the _first_ copy, Msg ID F31, out of queue and successfully sends it. The headers on the duplicate list posts bear out this scenario. The copy received _first_ by the list server was the _second_ copy sent by the MUA. The copy received _second_ was the _first_ sent by the MUA. I don't know what other insights can be gained by reading the headers or log entries. I consider this a closed case at this point and won't bother this list with further analysis of it. On the off chance that you or Gordon _do_ find something I've missed, please post and I'll revisit it. I have no idea why Evolution sent the same email twice. I didn't do this explicitly. Evolution is an odd duck, as MUAs go, and every now and then it does wierd stuff. The code base, I understand, is a disaster area, having been written and worked on by two or three different and separate teams. It's still the most powerful GUI MUA out there, IMHO. -- Lindsay Haisley | "Fighting against human creativity is like FMP Computer Services | trying to eradicate dandelions" 512-259-1190 | http://www.fmp.com | -- Pamela Jones ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
