sendmail / relay

Sat Nov 18 23:42:14 PST 2006

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Frank Bax wrote:

> I've had very few complaints about non-delivery of mail over the years, but 
> I don't know what to make of this one.  User is a 2-hour drive away, so I 
> didn't actually see his system, but I managed to get headers (see 
> below).  the jeff at xxx email addresses have been changed from original 
> values; references to domain.com and bsd35.ca also hide original values; 
> everything else is original; including references to sympatico and hotmail 
> servers.  Sympatico/Bellnexxia uses hotmail/msn servers for both pop3 and smtp.

I hate to sound all snippish, but this isn't a microsoft list. If
sympatico chooses to run that stuff, that's their business, but I'd
simply refer my user to them for help.  Your logs show the message
accepted for delivery at bellnexxia.  End of your involvement.  But
as seekers after truth, let us proceed ;-)

I take it that the sender of the mail is jeff at domain.com, that
she sent one mail to jeff at domain.com with a CC: to jeff at sympatico.ca
and that you expect the one to jeff at domain.com to be relayed also
to jeff at sympatico.ca, i.e. that jeff at sympatico.ca should get two
copies of the same mail, same msgid?  On *my* system, the user
software would throw out one of those as a duplicate ;-)  That's
a non-standard hack, two messages should be received.

Try conducting a controlled experiment.

1) Send an email to jeff at domain.com.  Send one to jeff at sympatico.com.
In the body of the email, put text like
	"This is to jeff at domain.com   Code word "ELEPHANT""
and
	"This is to jeff at sympatico.ca  Code word "WARTHOG"

Are both mails received?

2) Send an email to jeff at domain.com with CC to jeff at sympatico.com
In the body of the email, put the text
	"This is to both of them with a CC  Code word "GIRAFFE""

Are both mails received?

Do (1) and (2) as a user unconnected with either sympatico or 
"domain".  (Like the user you used to send this Q to the list.)

By "are both mails received?" I mean verify by speech over the 'phone
or by a separate set of emails with the user.  "Did you get the
email about the ELEPHANT?  How about the WARTHOG?  And the GIRAFFE?
Did you get two GIRAFFE mails?"

The use of the li'l beasties to refer to the messages is a clever
trick to avoid having the user actually have to read headers and
figure out which email is which of your test cases.  It is easy
to confuse messages, but everybody knows the difference between an
elephant and a warthog.

3) Now have the user do (1) & (2) as "jeff at domain.com" (if that's the
user).  The logs are harder for a stranger (me) to read if mail is
being sent to oneself.

Are all four mails received?

DSN doesn't work.  Don't expect it to.  Don't accept problem reports
about DSN from users.  In so many words, the last email below told
you this ... "mail relayed to non-DSN aware mailer" i.e. sent off to
Billy G's idea of a mailer.

Don't overlook the possibility that mail is getting lost by sympatico.

> My server hosts domain.com and relays mail for jeff at domain.com to a 
> sympatico.ca address.
> 
> To me it looks like the log files indicate a message was properly relayed, 
> but the user got a different email from my server about that message.
> 
> User says:
> 
>  >> I sent a message to jeff at domain.com and jeff at sympatico.ca on
>  >> Thu 9 Nov 2006 8:10 PM.  I received the message for jeff at sympatico.ca,
>  >> but not the other.  Option for "Return Receipt" was used.
> 
> On my server, I see the following log entries:

This gets hard to read because of all the jeffs and not knowing who
user is sending as, and from where.

> 
> Nov  9 20:09:55 walter sm-mta[25484]: kAA19qbo025484: 
> from=<jeff at domain.com>, size=4355, class=0, nrcpts=1, 
> msgid=<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAMI+UaUYSaZEtj3ckcqqqbfCgAAAEAAAAI82Z3ZNdrVHtDLJvaS5WPsBAAAAAA==@sympatico.c, 
> proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=bayc1-pasmtp07.bayc1.hotmail.com [65.54.191.167]
> 
> Nov  9 20:09:56 walter sm-mta[26677]: kAA19qbo025484: to=<jeff at domain.com>, 
> delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, pri=34355, 
> relay=toip3.bellnexxia.net. [209.226.175.86], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent 
> (ok:  Message 197669797 accepted)
> 
> Nov  9 20:09:56 walter sm-mta[26677]: kAA19qbo025484: kAA19ubo026677: DSN: 
> Return receipt
> 
> Nov  9 20:09:57 walter sm-mta[26677]: kAA19ubo026677: 
> to=<jeff at sympatico.ca>, delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, 
> pri=30000, relay=toip3.bellnexxia.net. [209.226.175.86], dsn=2.0.0, 
> 
> To me this looks like the message arrived at my server and was relayed to 
> bell/hotmail; but the user got a message indicating an error had occurred.

Looks like that to me, too.
" stat=Sent (ok:  Message 197669801 accepted)" seems to sum it all up.
Not your problem.

> X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3660MmjhEvYg2f34OAemlKwfim1hp8BGs=
> Received: from tomts11-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.55]) by
>          bay0-pamc1-f3.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444);
>          Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:10:12 -0800
> Received: from toip3.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.86])
>            by tomts11-srv.bellnexxia.net
>            (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP
>            id 
> <20061110011534.EEPO9169.tomts11-srv.bellnexxia.net at toip3.bellnexxia.net>
>            for <jeff at sympatico.ca>;
>            Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:15:34 -0500
> Received: from bsd35.ca (HELO walter.bsd35.ca) ([209.205.45.62])
>          by toip3.bellnexxia.net with ESMTP; 09 Nov 2006 20:09:56 -0500
> Received: from localhost (localhost)
>          by walter.bsd35.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) id kAA19ubo026677;
>          Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:09:56 -0500 (EST)
> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:09:56 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON at walter.bsd35.ca>
> Message-Id: <200611100109.kAA19ubo026677 at walter.bsd35.ca>
> To: <jeff at sympatico.ca>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
>      boundary="kAA19ubo026677.1163120996/walter.bsd35.ca"
> Subject: Return receipt
> Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (return-receipt)
> Return-Path: <>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2006 01:10:13.0038 (UTC) 
> FILETIME=[F95F94E0:01C70464]
> 
> 
> The original message was received at Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:09:55 -0500 (EST) 
> from bayc1-pasmtp07.bayc1.hotmail.com [65.54.191.167]
> 
>     ----- The following addresses had successful delivery notifications 

"successful"

> ----- <jeff at domain.com>  (relayed to non-DSN-aware mailer)
> 
>     ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to 
> toip2.bellnexxia.net.:

This isn't you, is it?  No.  This is your user being told that
bellnexxia has failed some how.

> <<< 421 #4.4.5 Too many connections to this host.

You see this from M$ servers a lot more than from BSD ones ;-)

> ... while talking to toip4.bellnexxia.net.:
> 
>  >>> QUIT
> 
> <<< 421 #4.4.5 Too many connections to this host.
> 
> <jeff at domain.com>... relayed; expect no further notifications

Again, it looks like your end did its job.

Dave
-- 
  "Confound these wretched rodents! For every one I fling away,
               a dozen more vex me!" -- Doctor Doom