on 4/2/04 2:05 PM, Kurt Bigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> on 4/2/04 1:53 PM, X-Istence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kurt Bigler wrote:

>>> Thanks for any thoughts, and sorry to be so lacking in info.  I did do a
>>> quick ps when I discovered the problem and I'm pretty sure that the
>>> tcpserver process involving qmail-smtpd was probably not there.  I only
>>> remembered it should have been there after rebooting and doing another ps.
>>> Is there some default mode for smtp connections that takes over under such a
>>> circumstance?
>> Well, if your SMTP service was not there, your server could not be
>> accepting mail, thus there would be nothing to bounce. Thus it would not
>> be able to create 5.7.1 bounces in the first place.
> I was wondering whether tcpserver on its own would start handling them if
> qmail-smtpd disappeared.  It seems to me tcpserver can do quite a few things
> on its own.  It would be very unfriendly if it were to do 5.7.1's rather
> than indicating a temporary failure though.

Oops sorry, I was thinking of inetd when I said "tcpserver" above.  Maybe
inetd provides some sort of default coverage for a port that no other
process is watching?


> Thanks,
> Kurt Bigler

Reply via email to