On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:40:54AM -0400, Steve Linberg wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > > Is it possible that this problem is more than just the buffer-size issue,
> > > or that the patch that increases the buffer size isn't a complete
> > > solution?
> >
> > Well, since you state that mailing to large-mx works for you, we
> > should consider the option that it is indeed something else.
>
> I suppose the next question is, since I'm a relative newbie to both qmail
> and DNS issues: is there any wider interest in trying to figure out what's
> going on, or is it my problem? :) I don't want to assume you all don't
I find this quite interesting :)
> have better things to do, and if I'm the only one affected by this issue,
> maybe I'm the one that should roll up my sleeves and see what I can
> do. I'd just be starting a long way back from where people familiar with
> the code would start from.
>
> Is there any other testing I can do to determine whether the buffer-size
> issue is the problem, or whether it's something else? Is it possible that
> the large-mx address isn't really returning a large result to me? Is
> there a way I can test that?
dig mx large-mx.ckdhr.com
> I really don't mean to be a pest with this, and I appreciate everyone's
> help so far. You can tell me to suck it up and deal with it myself if you
> get sick of it at any time. :)
I'm still here trying to figure out your problem :)
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
