http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-james/latest/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Means" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:54 PM Subject: RE: Newsgroup integration > Thanks Serge. > > 2.0a3 doesn't seem to be "generally" available yet (looking at > http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-james/release/), but I have both > Oracle and MySQL available, so I'll try changing to a db backend. > > However, here's what the mail admin (of the machine my James server was > "flooding") was seeing in the transaction: > > ***** > 2002-04-24 13:03:44.069887500 qmail-smtpd: pid 19775 from 66.92.129.218 > Non-exis > ting DNS_MX: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2002-04-24 13:03:44.271008500 qmail-smtpd: pid 19777 from 66.92.129.218 > Non-exis > ting DNS_MX: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2002-04-24 13:03:44.481761500 qmail-smtpd: pid 19779 from 66.92.129.218 > Non-exis > ting DNS_MX: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2002-04-24 13:03:44.687785500 qmail-smtpd: pid 19783 from 66.92.129.218 > Non-exis > ting DNS_MX: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ***** > > Does that seem like the 0-byte file system problem you described? > > Thanks. > > -Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:37 PM > > To: James Users List > > Subject: Re: Newsgroup integration > > > > > > I've seen this once before and dealt with a rather unknowledgeable and > > rude mail admin on the other end. I would swear it was related to the > > 0-byte file system problem... there was a message in the outgoing spool, > > James attempted to deliver it, James would send MAIL FROM/RCPT TO ok > > since that was in the objectstore file, then when it tried to send the > > data, and rather than accept the message outright, the remote server > > (the one complaining about getting pounded) would see that the message > > James was sending didn't have a valid header (because it was an empty > > message... no header, no body), so it would abort the communication > > between our DATA and QUIT commands. James would then say to itself, > > 'oh, this was a delivery problem'... it would try to save this for > > retrying, but would fail to save it because of the 0-byte stream. James > > would then try to resume delivering message, but unfortunately found the > > same message (because it couldn't resave it) and try to deliver it again. > > > > If you could try the 2.0a3 release, I had made some patches to the file > > repository that should avoid creating the 0-byte files. You could also > > try using a database repository as it never had this problem. > > -- > > Serge Knystautas > > Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites > > http://www.lokitech.com/ > > > > Chris Means wrote: > > > Here's a synopsis of the problem (w/James 2.0a2 on NT SP6a): > > > > > > > > >>Your server was sending me an email with an obviously bogus > > >>envelope sender. > > >>[snip]...but when you forward a spam with a bogus envelope sender, your > > >>server needs to > > >>take no for an answer. It was pounding me thousands of times per > > >>hour for over > > >>a day. > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any James logs from that time... > > > > > > What I don't know is if this could be a configuration problem > > on my end or a > > > potential bug in that version of James. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:50 PM > > >>To: James Users List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Subject: RE: Newsgroup integration > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>David, > > >>> > > >>>I posted a message about a potential problem in James 2.0a2 > > >> > > >>with messages > > >> > > >>>with invalid headers/addresses being rejected by a remote server > > >>>(and James > > >>>ignoring the rejection), but no one responded to that one either... > > >> > > >>Post that one again... > > >> > > >>FYI this isn't a very busy project, posts often get ignored > > simply because > > >>no one has enough time to deal with them, its not a snub. > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
