Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about Qmail relating to MX retry processing

To: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: Question about Qmail relating to MX retry processing
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:56:43 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
In-reply-to: <20061125165751.GA26193@odin.dempsky.org>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
References: <00a901c71063$d76b7920$7e00a8c0@pawel> <20061125.105613.226722930.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <20061125165751.GA26193@odin.dempsky.org>
+ "Matthew R. Dempsky" <mrd@alkemio.org>:

| On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:56:13AM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
| > Be that as it may, changing qmail's behaviour on this issue would
| > probably be nontrivial, due to the way responsibility is divided up
| > between qmail-send and qmail-remote.
| 
| Matthias Andree wrote a patch that changes this behavior[1].
| 
| [1] 
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail/patch-qmail-1.03-rfc2821.diff

I see.  But that only changes one thing:  If the server greets the
client with a temporary error, then qmail-remote will go to the next
item on the list of MXs.

Unfortunately, RFC 2821 only allows two codes on the initial greeting:
220 and 554.  I suspect the rationale behind this is that if the
server knows it has a temporary problem so it cannot receive mail,
then it should not accept connections in the first place.

Also, without further work, if the patched qmail-remote gets a
temporary error on greeting (or fails to connect) for each MX, it will
log the misinformative message "Sorry, I wasn't able to establish an
SMTP connection. (#4.4.1)".

The first place in the SMTP dialog where a temporary error is allowed
is in response to the MAIL command.  I suppose one could further
develop the patch to go to the next MX if that happens, but again it
really should keep a record of what really happened and log something
more appropriate than the above #4.4.1 message.

- Harald

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>