Aaron Stone wrote: > > Well done! That header has been in there so long I definitely would not > have suspected it as the problem.
It was not the header that was causing the problem. Before 2.2.4, it was added during insertion. In that case, the rfcsize in the physmessage table was correctly calculated. No problem. But someone filed a patch (which I accepted) which deferred the addition to the retrieval phase. That meant the rfcsize was no longer correct. It took me a while to realise this. -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl _______________________________________________ Dbmail-dev mailing list [email protected] http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
