On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I suspect that won't work anyway, since now its a duplicate of
>>>> one that was already processed, which is why it would fail ...
>>>>
>>>> We'll have to keep a close eye on this for the next one you know didn't go
>>>> through, and I'm waiting for details from the developers on how I can
>>>> improve reporting without filling up the file system with debug messages
>>>> :(
>>>
>>> OK, the repost went through. Seems somehow the original email did not
>>> get processed, and my bounces are automatically deleted, but a new email
>>> worked. Strange.
>>
>> According to our end, your original did get processed, but failed ... the
>> problem is, there are no details (that I can find) on *why* it failed ...
>> that is what I sent out to the developers, how to determine why it failed
>> without having to turn debug logging *way* up :(
>
> So you do see a failure on your end, but no specification?
This is correct ... one of the 'rules' appears to be being triggered, but
the system either doesn't record *which* rules (based on default debugging
level), or I can't find where its recorded ... which is why I've sent a
note to the mj developers ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
