maciejm:
> Nov 13 14:31:24 mail postfix/smtp[13077]: 4CXcYV334tz20nTW:
> to=, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10628, delay=5295,
> delays=5044/0/0/250, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (lost connection with
> 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] while sending end of data -- message may be sent
> more than onc
Hello
Some times in mailq i get hanging message like:
4CXcYV334tz20nTW 1946580 Fri Nov 13 12:03:10 m.u...@domain12.pl
(lost connection with 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] while sending end of data --
message may be sent more than once)
dcb...@domain1.pl
On 12 Aug 2018, at 16:50, Thomas Kristensen wrote:
Hey
I got this strange problem with postfix 3.1.0.
I got this one server that doesn't get all the mails, queued for it.
Some mails gets the error in subject.
And if I do a tcpdump on the tcp stream I see this everytime:
(the content has
On 12.08.18 20:50, Thomas Kristensen wrote:
Subject: Timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent more
than once
I got this strange problem with postfix 3.1.0.
I got this one server that doesn't get all the mails, queued for it. Some mails
gets the error in subject.
And if I do
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 08:50:19PM +, Thomas Kristensen wrote:
> DATA
> 354 [794178adb94846f8975ac93c9a320e4a] Start mail input; end with
> .
> Received: from Server (unknown [(removed)])
> by Server (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41pBtg5rKGzqYnC
> for (removed); Sun, 12 Aug 2018
Invalid mimetype?
milter out of mem or temp storage?
boundary_274246_f400b577-4e93-4ffd-b5ec-355c7a0b5059
Content-Type: application
.
Hey
I got this strange problem with postfix 3.1.0.
I got this one server that doesn't get all the mails, queued for it. Some mails
gets the error in subject.
And if I do a tcpdump on the tcp stream I see this everytime:
(the content has been wiped for some information)
220
t; -Queue ID- --Size-- Arrival Time -Sender/Recipient---
> 20B03336F2226099 Thu Apr 19 18:02:47 supp...@example.com
> (lost connection with server25.example.org[private/dovecot-lmtp] while
> sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once)
>
---
20B03336F2226099 Thu Apr 19 18:02:47 supp...@example.com
(lost connection with server25.example.org[private/dovecot-lmtp] while sending
end of data -- message may be sent more than once)
us...@example.com
us
Follow-up with our solution: issue was caused by ASAs default SMTP
inspection rule; resolved by network admins by disabling SMTP inspection.
Kristjan
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Kristjan Nii krstjn.v...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Wietse ja Bill for your advice and tips (and patience);
Thank you, Wietse ja Bill for your advice and tips (and patience); we were
able to resolve the issue. In fact, it was still ASA-related.
for x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]:25
Apr 22 17:05:32 mailhost postfix/smtp[23649]: E2A36C84B2:
to=u...@example.zz, relay=x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]:25, delay=1999,
delays=1369/20/0.02/610, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (conversation with
x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x] timed out while sending end of data -- message may be
sent
more
, status=deferred (conversation
with
x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x] timed out while sending end of data -- message may
be
sent
more than once)
The Cisco PIX (ASA) has a history of bugs that break email. As the
logging shows, Postfix can work around some bugs but but it cannot
work around other bugs
Kristjan Nii:
Thank you for your response!
I viewed the some emails in the queue and did not see DKIM signatures in
them. Also, our network guys confirmed, that ASA version is 7.3, which
should be bug-free.
Any other ideas or things I should/could check and test?
Other issues may have to do
] timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent
more than once)
Apr 22 16:55:01 mailhost postfix/qmgr[30648]: E2A36C84B2:
from=noreply.supp...@isp.zz, size=7385, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Apr 22 16:55:22 mailhost postfix/smtp[23649]: E2A36C84B2: enabling PIX
workarounds: disable_esmtp
mailhost postfix/smtp[23649]: E2A36C84B2:
to=u...@example.zz, relay=x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]:25, delay=1999,
delays=1369/20/0.02/610, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred (conversation with
x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x] timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent
more than once)
The Cisco PIX (ASA) has a history
John,
Oct 5 00:10:22 myhost postfix/smtp[28713]: 125BC2400A7:
to=fred.blo...@abc.tld, relay=mail.abc.tld[123.456.789.123]:25,
delay=187500, delays=186888/0.01/0.16/612, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred
(conversation with mail.abc.tld[123.456.789.123] timed out while sending
end of data
[123.456.789.123]:25
Oct 5 00:10:22 myhost postfix/smtp[28713]: 125BC2400A7:
to=fred.blo...@abc.tld, relay=mail.abc.tld[123.456.789.123]:25,
delay=187500, delays=186888/0.01/0.16/612, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred
(conversation with mail.abc.tld[123.456.789.123] timed out while sending
end of data
]
timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than
once)
.
.
Oct 5 01:20:10 myhost postfix/qmgr[18862]: 125BC2400A7:
from=john@xyz.tld, size=2760, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Oct 5 01:20:10 myhost postfix/smtp[30509]: 125BC2400A7: enabling
PIX workarounds: disable_esmtp
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:39:11 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
it is ?, oh
Am 15.06.2011 08:39, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org:
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just grep logs for outgoing mails that failed pr ip,
and add this header ignore pr cidr maps
Yeah, that's a great idea!
but what if there are
On Wednesday June 15 2011 05:42:36 Noel Jones wrote:
At this time I'm inclined to set this aside. The DKIM bug
doesn't seem to be widespread; there is no compelling case to
add a new workaround right now.
Indeed the situation has much improved in the past year or two.
Many sites have turned
Victor Duchovni:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen are not
obviously such)
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
Solution:
=
master.cf:
nodkimunix - - - - - smtp -o
smtp_header_checks=pcre:/etc/postfix/no_dkim.pcre
main.cf:
transport_maps =
On 6/14/2011 8:34 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
Solution:
=
master.cf:
nodkimunix - - - - - smtp -o
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to smtp_pix_workarounds!
--
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:48:54PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to smtp_pix_workarounds!
How does an SMTP client recognize an ASA box before it breaks email?
Only from the /^[02 *]+$/ banner.
# telnet mx.interfree.it 25
Trying 213.158.72.46...
Connected to mx.interfree.it.
Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Yeah. Maybe it would make a cool addition to smtp_pix_workarounds!
How does an SMTP client recognize an ASA box before it breaks email?
Only from the /^[02 *]+$/ banner.
# telnet mx.interfree.it 25
Trying 213.158.72.46...
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:18:43PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
# telnet mailamir.com 25
Trying 114.31.73.44...
Connected to mailamir.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 **
Hmm...
% telnet mailamir.com 25
Trying 114.31.73.44...
Connected to mailamir.com.
Ralf wrote:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
But you already knew that! :)
ASA bug CSCsy28792 and a couple of related header-parsing bugs,
triggered by encountering a content-type or content-transfer-encoding
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
A Postfix system with a PIX in front of it and STARTTLS censored as
XXXA (same length).
Yes, thought so too.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin
* Mark Martinec mark.martinec+post...@ijs.si:
Ralf wrote:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
But you already knew that! :)
Yes I know.
ASA bug CSCsy28792 and a couple of related header-parsing bugs,
How does an SMTP client recognize an ASA box before it breaks email?
Only from the /^[02 *]+$/ banner.
# telnet mx.interfree.it 25
220 **
I think the newer versions of ASA can be configured to let ESMTP pass through
without
* Mark Martinec mark.martinec+post...@ijs.si:
I think the newer versions of ASA can be configured to let ESMTP pass
through without censoring the greeting, while still exhibiting one of
the header parsing bugs - which can lead to dropping the TCP session
without a RST (but with a message in
Am 14.06.2011 15:34, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
Today I found that some sites behind a PIX/ASA firewall with smtp
protocol fixup would not accept DKIM signed mails.
Solution:
=
master.cf:
nodkimunix - - - - - smtp -o
Am 14.06.2011 20:48, schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
* Mark Martinec mark.martinec+post...@ijs.si:
I think the newer versions of ASA can be configured to let ESMTP pass
through without censoring the greeting, while still exhibiting one of
the header parsing bugs - which can lead to dropping the
Wietse Venema:
Hmm...
% telnet mailamir.com 25
Trying 114.31.73.44...
Connected to mailamir.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 **
help
502 5.5.2 Error: command not recognized
FYI, this is how I quickly identify Postfix MTAs.
Wietse
* Robert Schetterer rob...@schetterer.org:
make it more public , firewall admins may awake, in germany heise
postings help sometimes *g
For that one would need large scale statistics.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:48:54 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same problem and
came up with the same workaround, still in place.
Yeah. Maybe
On 6/14/2011 5:49 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:48:54 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Noel Jones njo...@megan.vbhcs.org:
I think I posted something almost exactly like this a while
ago
(year+?). Anyway, I can confirm that I've had this same
problem and
came up with the
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:32:39 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
C) use existing smtp_header_checks solution.
extend to smtp_header_checks_maps, and then use any maps postfix
support
is smtp_header_checks already pr recipients server ?
On 6/14/2011 7:42 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:32:39 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
C) use existing smtp_header_checks solution.
extend to smtp_header_checks_maps, and then use any maps
postfix support
That's an interesting idea in itself, but in the scope of pix
workarounds
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen are not
obviously such) one still needs manual
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:05:24 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
That's an interesting idea in itself, but in the scope of pix
workarounds it's not a huge improvement since it still requires
manual
intervention per server/domain.
fail2ban could be ones friend if postfix have this
fail2ban then just
On 6/14/2011 8:22 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 08:05:24PM -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
I was thinking a setting integrated with smtp_pix_workarounds would be more
automatic, with little maintenance once configured.
Given that the banner detection is incomplete (some pixen
[19842]: send attr action = delayed
Mar 5 14:44:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: send attr reason = lost
connection with mx1.hotmail.com[65.54.188.94] while sending end of
data -- message may be sent more than once
Mar 5 14:44:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: vstream_fflush_some: fd 13 flush 403
Mar 5 14:44:23
postfix/smtp[19842]: send attr reason = lost
connection with mx1.hotmail.com[65.54.188.94] while sending end of
data -- message may be sent more than once
Mar 5 14:44:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: vstream_fflush_some: fd 13 flush 403
Mar 5 14:44:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: vstream_buf_get_ready: fd
:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: send attr action = delayed
Mar 5 14:44:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: send attr reason = lost
connection with mx1.hotmail.com[65.54.188.94] while sending end of
data -- message may be sent more than once
Mar 5 14:44:23 out postfix/smtp[19842]: vstream_fflush_some: fd
Am 05.03.2011 16:18, schrieb Andy:
Why in the world do you start with a debug-log instead a normal
one with filtered where you see a problem?
Because I already went through those. The outbound server has been
working perfectly for more than a year with the same configuration,
nothing was
On 3/5/11 9:02 AM, Andy at andyre...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all.
Since yesterday we are having major issues with our outbound relay,
mostly with Hotmail/Live servers. Gmail others seems to work fine.
I updated postfix to the latest squeeze version and turned on debugging:
...
Where should I
On 2011-02-24 13:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
Stanisław Findeisen:
Hi
I am getting such errors in the log:
Feb 24 10:03:21 * postfix/smtp[9203]: C2EFF1823C1: lost connection with
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.43.27] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
This happens
Hi
I am getting such errors in the log:
Feb 24 10:03:21 * postfix/smtp[9203]: C2EFF1823C1: lost connection with
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.43.27] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
This happens many times a day with various servers --- not just
google.com. Otherwise
Stanis??aw Findeisen:
Hi
I am getting such errors in the log:
Feb 24 10:03:21 * postfix/smtp[9203]: C2EFF1823C1: lost connection with
ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM[74.125.43.27] while sending end of data -- message
may be sent more than once
This happens many times a day with various servers
Lie, Jafaruddin:
Hi Wietse
1. No 220 *2**0**200*02*0*00 when
telneting into the Exchange server:
[r...@mailinglist]~# telnet x.x.1.74 25
Trying x.x.1.74...
Connected to x.x.1.74 (192.168.1.74).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 xx.xx.edu.au Microsoft ESMTP
ScanMail)
If it happens again, I'll follow the instruction to debug :)
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of Wietse Venema
Sent: Fri 8/27/2010 9:08 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Another timed out while sending end of data Error
Lie, Jafaruddin:
Hi
: conversation with
x.x.x.x [x.x.x.x] timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent
more than once).
The thing is, it doesn't happen all the time.
1 email can be stuck in the queue with that error message for a while before
it gets delivered, while another email (same content, to same
Lie, Jafaruddin:
There's an ASA 5500 inbetween, but the SMTP fixup protocol has been turned
off,
Prove it.
Wietse
On 2010-02-16 7:30 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
I wasn't the one posting the link, but I checked it when DJ Lucas posted
it and checked it again just now, and it does have a visible answer (at
the bottom of the page).
Yes, but for posterity and archives, Ansgar is correct and LuKreme is
wrong. I
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't. Experts Exchange is such a complete scam that I have it
blocked in my local /etc/hosts and excluded from google search results.
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. It's also viewable if you change your browser's user agent
string to that of a search engine spider. How else do you think these
On 16-Feb-2010, at 12:11, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
The link you posted had no visible answer. It had a banner about
signing
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Feb-2010, at 12:11, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
The link you posted had no visible answer. It
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 16-Feb-2010, at 12:11, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2010-02-16 LuKreme wrote:
On 15-Feb-2010, at 03:23, Barney Desmond wrote:
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches.
No it isn't.
Yes it
On 15 February 2010 18:41, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
I can't get to it without entering a CC and starting a 30 day trial. The
bottom of the page is white space. I see no options anywhere on the page to
get at the info without signing up. This is kinda by design isn't it?
On 2010-02-15 5:23 AM, Barney Desmond wrote:
Apologies for pushing the OT thread.
Experts Exchange is viewable (at least) from google searches. I'm
pretty sure it's a referer-check, used to get plenty of good
google-juice for their content. As a convenient side-effect, you can
always scroll
So here's an update:
1. I have turned off fixup smtp and checked that inspect esmtp or inspect
smtp is not running.
2. I have also enabled ICMP for both ends from our DMZ mail server and
internal mail server. It is still happening.
Plot thickens huh.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM, DJ Lucas
2010/2/16 Jafaruddin Lie jafaruddin@gmail.com:
So here's an update:
1. I have turned off fixup smtp and checked that inspect esmtp or inspect
smtp is not running.
2. I have also enabled ICMP for both ends from our DMZ mail server and
internal mail server. It is still happening.
well, try
. Reinhardt crypto...@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 10:50:07 PM
Subject: Re: Postfix - Timeout While Sending End of Data
Currently we have mails going to our internal mail server being queued
up.
So, to answer your question, it's ethernet 100Mbps connection.
On Tue, Feb 16
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to view it.
I'm sure this breaks one if not many netiquette rules.
On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
Never post links to information that requires a credit card in order to view
it.
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:33 AM:
On 02/15/2010 01:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
DJ Lucas put forth on 2/15/2010 1:22 AM:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Security/Software_Firewalls/Enterprise_Firewalls/Cisco_PIX_Firewall/Q_24438893.html
Never post links to information that
On 6/10/2009 12:16 AM, June Qiu wrote:
I can send short emails (1KB) from my mailserver (abc.domain.com) to
gmail account (t...@gmail.com), but for larger emails (7KB), it
fails. It gets deferred on the mail queue forever. But this same mail
can be sent to yahoo.
Am I missing something?
On Thursday 23 April 2009 10:02:29 Jørn Odberg wrote:
I can now see that the recieving side has an ESTABLISHED connection from
the sender, even after the sender tell me it has lost the connection
with the reciever. So it seems like something in the middle is forcing
the connection to a
Hello again.
I can now see that the recieving side has an ESTABLISHED connection from
the sender, even after the sender tell me it has lost the connection
with the reciever. So it seems like something in the middle is forcing
the connection to a close...
I have now captured some more
?) will not deliver... It takes a minute or two, and
then I receive conversation with NotBib(..and the rest of the domain)
timed out while sending end of data -- message may be sent more than once.
I have tried sending a mail with a size of 1589 from NotBib to BamBib,
with debugging turned on inside main.cf
Would I need to do this at the sender or the receiver? Or both ends?
Thanks for the reply, Wietse. And thanks for Postfix. :-)
Kind regards from Norway,
Jørn Odberg
Wietse Venema skrev:
Turn off TCP window scaling.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tcp+window+scaling
Wietse
--
Turn off TCP window scaling.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tcp+window+scaling
Wietse
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Jørn Odberg wrote:
Would I need to do this at the sender or the receiver? Or both ends?
Do it on your end, which is what you control.
--
Sahil Tandon sa...@tandon.net
Hello Sahil, and thanks for your reply.
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and
the receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity
or Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling at both ends, but it did not
2009/4/22 Jørn Odberg j...@bibsyst.no:
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and the
receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity or
Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling at both ends, but it did not
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:57:30PM +1000, Barney Desmond wrote:
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and the
receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity or
Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling
J?rn Odberg:
Would I need to do this at the sender or the receiver? Or both ends?
You can run tcpdump at one end first. If we can't figure out what
is happening, then we may also need the other end to see if
something is messing around with the packets.
Some firewalls have incomplete TCP
Jørn,
As I said in the first email, I control both ends (both the sender- and
the receiver-server). But I do not control neither network-connectivity
or Internet-connectivity at either sites.
I did try turning of Window Scaling at both ends, but it did not help at
all. It still won't
86 matches
Mail list logo
