On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:55:31 -0700 Tony Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i suspect the behaviour you are observing is coming from hosts that > > have ignore_bounce_errors set to anything not zero, and have > > Well, an "ignore_bounce_errors" set true should be enough then... > there isn't a need for any cron jobs or anything to thaw as it would > never get frozen and retrying is normal. I should point out that I think Tamasz was referring to ignore_bounce_errors_after, which doesn't do quite what it sounds like, and certainly doesn't cause incessant retries. From the manual: "After a permanent delivery failure, bounce messages are frozen, because there is no sender to whom they can be returned. When a frozen bounce message has been on the queue for more than the given time, it is unfrozen at the next queue run, and a further delivery is attempted. If delivery fails again, the bounce message is discarded. This makes it possible to keep failed bounce messages around for a shorter time than the normal maximum retry time for frozen messages." FWIW, this option is set to 2 days by default. So ignore_bounce_errors_after set to non-zero will cause *one* additional bounce retry, approximately 2 days after the first rejection, and then discard the bounce. This is not an unreasonable option for Exim to have, since a well configured system very rarely generates bounces anyway (at least not to external users; and internal mail is a matter of policy), and it is possible that someone misses a bounce because their mailbox is full or something. (The systems you are fighting with are not well- configured if they are generating bounces because they don't like the attachment name or whatever; again, this is not Exim default behaviour) A more problematic option is likely to be auto_thaw; this *will* cause repeated retries of rejected bounces. FWIW, you are not the only one suffering from brain-dead hosts like this. Just this morning I was browsing some logs and found some incessant retries from an Exim server like you describe. They too carried the X-AntiAbuse headers I was on about earlier, and now you mention it, I do think I see this with a fair degree of frequency too. Whilst you're right in saying that the presence of auto_thaw does give users a long rope to hang themselves with, I wouldn't interpret the presence of lots of machines doing this as "lots of users get it wrong"; as I said in my post earlier today, I think it's far more likely to be a poor choice that is imposed on users of a particular packaging or configuration system. Tim -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
