Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2001)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: causes of multiple messages [WAS: Re: senate.gov problem]
From: Omar Thameen <omar @ clifford . inch . com>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 03:54:06 -0400
To: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <20010504174306.E86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com>; from Tim Pierce on Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:43:06PM -0400
References: <B712F7D8.8A24%chuqui@plaidworks.com> <B712F7D8.8A24%chuqui@plaidworks.com> <200105010655.f416tpQ09099@linux.local> <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> <20010504174306.E86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com>

Since I found Tim's description useful (though I haven't had the
problem myself), I'll add one:

The recipient SMTP server closes the connecton before sending a final
acknowledgement of having received it.  The delivering server can't mark
it as delivered, so re-queues it, and the process continues.

Strangely, I've seen 2 addresses at the same domain with one exhibiting
the above behavior and one not.

Omar

On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:43:06PM -0400, Tim Pierce wrote:
> 
> We occasionally get a complaint that someone has received dozens
> or even hundreds of copies of a single mailing list message.
> Each time we've been able to track down the source of the problem,
[...]
> The gateway opens an SMTP connection with the internal POP server
> and announces it has mail for 50 users.  Suppose one of those users
> has a full mailbox.  The POP server will return a 450 response for
> that user, meaning "can't deliver now, but try again later."
> 
> The gateway *should* recognize that it should only try redelivering
> to that particular user.  Not all systems do recognize this.  Instead,
> they forge ahead and deliver the mail to the other 49 recipients, and
> then turn around and re-queue it for all 50.  In a few minutes it
> redelivers the message to all 50, except for the one whose mailbox is
> full.  So it re-queues the message again.  And so on.



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@ripco.com>
Next: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem)
From: James M Galvin <galvin@acm.org>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: senate.gov problem - update
From: Sharon Tucci <sharon@listhost.net>
Next: Re: we aren't the enemy, but it's hard to prove it
From: James M Galvin <galvin@acm.org>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com