[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug in .48-970407 reports

To: Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>
Subject: Re: bug in .48-970407 reports
From: Eugene Crosser <crosser@online.ru>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:21:55 +0400 (MSD)
cc: zmailer@nic.funet.fi
In-Reply-To: <19970408182958Z2298-21911+247@nic.funet.fi>
Reply-To: Eugene Crosser <crosser@online.ru>
Sender: crosser@ariel.sovam.com

> > Just a few minutes ago I installed .48-970407 and had to rollback
> > immediately because of the following trouble:  non-delivery reports
> > look like this:

>      But why does the status info be blank ?
>      What the real error was ?  There might (after all)
>      be a loophole where the information for the messages
>      were not set for the notary.

This error was "No MX for the domain, are we the best?" (something of that
meaning).  The same occurs when when you try <@a:b@c> type of address.

Eugene

References:
- Re: bug in .48-970407 reports
  - From: Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>

Prev by Date: Addresses of @a:b@c are now acceptable in all forms
Next by Date: Re: weekend datadump at mea.tmt.tele.fi
Prev by thread: Re: bug in .48-970407 reports
Next by thread: Re: hung smtp processes again
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread