Nigel,
Sounds logical, however, when you replied to my message you used "reply
to all".
I had a friend of mine (linux guru) setup as additional TO in my email.
When you replied to all of us he got your reply just fine. So that means
that exim is not misreading my header emails at all (otherwise you would
have gotten a malformed email address instead of his correct one). So
some how my use of "xmailscanner" has gotten messed up?? I would be more
than glad to send you a copy of the mailscanner.conf and exim.conf if
this would help you out (and you were willing to look at it in more
detail). Now my friend, Petr, is saying that he believes that the syslog
would only record one email going out .. And that in the final step exim
would create 3 separate smtp connections and send the emails. Do you
agree with this. Also shouldn't the file
/var/spool/exim/input/<messageID>-J contain ALL email addresses the
message is being sent to. By the way, I am using exim version 3.35.
Thanks for your earlier response.
Matt Jones
-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Metheringham
[
mailto:Nigel.Metheringham@dev.InTechnology.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 4:33 AM
To: Matt Jones
Cc: exim-users@???; Petr Stehlick
Subject: Re: [Exim] Exim not delievering messages with multiple
recipients
On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 19:43, Matt Jones wrote:
> Then after a second or so I see this in the /log/syslog:
>
> <date> <servername> mailscanner[processID]: Scanning 1 message, XXX
> bytes <date> <servername> mailscanner[processID]: Scanned 1 message,
> XXX bytes in 0 seconds
> <date> <servername> exim[processID]: <date> 19Gjvw5....-00 =>
> <firstTO:recipient> D=procmail T=procmail_pipe.
Your scanning setup is broken - either you are pushing multiple
recipients down a pipe and only passing one address, or its
(mis)reading the addresses from the headers.
Its starting to appear that the major problem in mail configuration is
that people are making a complete hash of adding in content scanning
systems - to the point where the majority of these systems appear to
lose mail under some circumstances (and some appear to lose *lots* of
mail). Not to mention the number of odd bounces I see from content
scanners on the mailing list - just mentioning viagra has probably
prevented this message getting to a good percentage :-)
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
