i tried something more :
sent messages to bad_user_names @yahoo.com, hotmail.com. My qmail logs show
that they bounce back immediately, with a error code 554 and 550
respectively.  which is the correct and expected behaviour.
No i try again to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], i get a
250_ok (remote accepted message) !!! (they should have bounced back).

is it that schwab.com, aol.com are delaying the bounce back and sending the
bounce back after sending the accept message ......
and my qmail logs when it gets the 250_ok message, doesn't write any other
error info into logs for the same message id / delivery id. or maybe
qmail-remote closes connection with the remote server after seeing a 250_ok
message and thus doesn't get the delayed bounce ???
( i'm sending the email using "mailto address", and putting a subject with
no message body)

as you've mentioned : you see the accept message and followed by a bounce.
what i could be possibly missing? is it some sort of qmail-remote
configuration??
thanks,
Ketan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: incorrect_user@correct_domain accepted


> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:52:54PM -0700, Ketan Bajaj wrote:
> > i think i haven't been clear enough in explaining the problem...
> > again,
> > A (local smtp server)        B (remote smtp server)
> >
> > B is at domain schwab.com, about which i do not know anything, whether
it
> > has qmail, sendmail, exchange or anything else.
> >
> > 1. when A is setup as qmail, and remote address is incorrect@B there is
no
> > bounce from B and the message is accepted at B. I see this at the qmail
logs
> > on A.
>
> In sending them a test message, I too see the remote host accept the
> message, but it promptly bounces it with '550 User Unknown'. Your qmail
> server is likely configured incorrectly -- you should be seeing the
> bounces. Please send a message, _headers and all_, that you sent to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from your qmail server...
>
> GW

Reply via email to