Thanks.
I'll run the tests again next week after the four days have passed and
let you have the output.
Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Steve Sargent wrote:
>
>
>>Retry rule: imap.qmul.ac.uk * F,1h,5m; F,2h,15m; G,16h,2h,1.5; F,4d,8h;
>
>
>>Route: hcw295@??? error 0: SMTP error from remote mailer after
>>RCPT TO:<hcw295@???>: host localhost.qmul.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]: 452
>>4.2.2 Over quota
>> first failed: 20-Jun-2005 16:04:20
>> last tried: 23-Jun-2005 13:01:24
>> next try at: 23-Jun-2005 21:01:24
>
>
> So it hasn't hit four days yet. Therefore it won't time out yet. That is
> a routing retry record. So it shouldn't try routing again till the next
> try time.
>
>
>>> exim -d -M <an id for a stuck message>
>
>
>>Considering: hcw295@???
>>unique = hcw295@???
>>dbfn_read: key=R:imap.qmul.ac.uk
>>dbfn_read: key=R:hcw295@???
>>no domain retry record
>>hcw295@???: queued for routing
>
>
> It does NOT say "no address retry record", which means that it did find
> the retry record.
>
>
>>routing hcw295@???
>
>
> Did you run this after 23-Jun-2005 21:01:24? If not (and I suspect not),
> it shouldn't have gone on to the routing... OH, SILLY ME. IDIOT. What I
> should have told you to do was
>
> exim -d -Mc <an id for a stuck message>
>
> The -Mc is vital. With just -M, it ignores delays and proceeds anyway.
> With -Mc, it respects retry times. So the -M is forcing it to proceed.
>
>
>>added retry item for R:hcw295@???: errno=0 65 flags=0
>
>
> ... and updates the retry information.
>
> But in any case, as it isn't 4 days from the first failure, it would not
> have bounced the message.
>
--
Steve Sargent, Vox +44 020 7882 3220, Fax +44 020 8980 2001
QMUL Computing Services, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK
Email : S.L.Sargent@???
WWW page:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/~cgaa160/index.html
PIPER _|_
PA28R ____/___\___
___________[=o=]___________
ARROW e/ o \e
