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?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
