Re: weird delivery report in 2.99.49p8

[mea@nic.funet.fi]

> Nope. I've been seeing ALOT of successfully delivery reports. 95% of
> which the user did NOT as for a return-receipt.

	"Did not as ..." ?  You mean "Did not ask ..." ?
	In  scheduler/msgerror.c  around line 650 there is
	code:


          if (cfp->msgbodyoffset > 0 && headeridx > 0 ) {
            /* We have knowledge about the headers of errored email,
               use those headers on output ! */
            if (strncmp(cfp->contents + headeridx, "m\n", 2) == 0)
              headeridx += 2;
            fputs(cfp->contents + headeridx, errfp);
            putc('\n', errfp); /* Newline in between headers and the body.. */
            fseek(fp, (off_t)(cfp->msgbodyoffset), SEEK_SET);
          } else {
            /* Scan the input, and drop off the Zmailer
               envelope headers */

	Change that  fseek()  to   fseek(fp, 0, SEEK_SET)  and
	you should start getting envelopes displayed for them too.
	(It is not pretty...)

	If there really are reports that should not be there,
	that is, without  "todsn NOTIFY=SUCCESS,..."  parameter,
	then I want to know your  scheduler.conf,  and a few
	samples of these reports with envelopes.

	With the new NetscapeCommunicators et.al. it is extremely
	easy to ask for success reports without realizing what
	they ask for...

/Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>  Back at office around 9th, Dec.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Eugene Crosser [SMTP:crosser@online.ru]
> > Sent:	Friday, December 05, 1997 10:43 AM
> > To:	Ambrose Li
> > Cc:	zmailer@nic.funet.fi
> > Subject:	Re: weird delivery report in 2.99.49p8
> > 
> > > I got a very strange delivery report just now. (At least I haven't
> > seen
> > > such a thing.)  The system is 2.99.49p8. 
> > > 
> > > The strange thing is the "Ok"...
> > 
> > > Here is the report:
> > > 
> > > <local acli@mingpaoxpress.com acli@mingpaoxpress.com 65534>: Ok
> > 
> > Sender probably has requested Return-Receipt-to: ?
> > 
> > BTW, this reminded me about a bug in Zmailer: if you do not have a
> > `command=' verb in a scheduler.conf entry, messages scheduled to this
> > entry are retried periodically, and fail every time.  So far, so good.
> > But, if the sender requested a Return-Receipt-To:, he gets a
> > *delivery*
> > report *every* time the message is retried!  Not good.
> > 
> > Eugene
>