-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Wednesday, February 07, 2007 23:21:21 +0100 Magnus Hagander
<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>> Well, yeah, it's much better, and quite often it is that fast. And then
>>>> suddenly something happens and you have a 4-6 hour delay on a couple of
>>>> mails, while others go through. But the speed-when-things-are-working is
>>>> good, yes :-P
>>> Being a fairly new lurker to the Postgresql lists, what is the reason for
>>> the speed delay? I, too, have a 3-5 hour delay, but I thought it was
>>> something to do with my end and greylisting. Now I'm not sure . . . :/
>>
>> Just to follow up this one ... Kevin sent me an email including the full
>> headers for one that took 12 hours to be delivered ... using the QUEUE ID, I
>> checked the logs and it turns out that the mail server couldn't resolve the
>> MX the first and second time it tried to deliver, but succeeded on the
>> third ...
>
> This sounds scaringly close to the problem we had on wwwmaster with it
> not delivering emails. Resolving separately looked fine, but sendmail
> couldn't resolve.
> Could it be symptoms of the same problem?
Does postfix do any 'caching of results'? For instance, if it got a failed
response, would it cache that and re-use that later, pending it timing out in
its own cache? So try 1 failed, try 2 used cache and failed, try 3 was after
cache timed out and re-tried, at which point the local DNS server had the right
value ...
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFylpX4QvfyHIvDvMRAiRRAJwPkc49srmVPpyvARtqmsj4AkdDbwCeJAkD
1uOaaNeElpjYlfebp7PkYHI=
=FYu7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
