Topic: Repeat delivery of same email

[Ness]

One remote legitimate domain is sending an email to my domain on SME 6.0.1.

The mail is accepted and delivered to the local client.

a few second later, the same email arrives at the client again so I looked in the qmail log and saw this (a snip for the repetetive content for message 4218965)

Code: [Select]

2006-07-04 14:09:53.740986500 new msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:09:53.740991500 info msg 4218965: bytes 36830 from <george@remote.domain> qp 12788 uid 404
2006-07-04 14:09:53.748721500 starting delivery 6437: msg 4218965 to local alias-localdelivery-chris@myserver.co.uk
2006-07-04 14:09:53.748726500 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:09:53.771896500 new msg 4218966
2006-07-04 14:09:53.771901500 info msg 4218966: bytes 36954 from <george@remote.domain> qp 12793 uid 400
2006-07-04 14:09:53.776127500 starting delivery 6438: msg 4218966 to local chris@myserver.domain
2006-07-04 14:09:53.776132500 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:09:53.776135500 delivery 6437: success: forward:_qp_12793/did_0+0+1/
2006-07-04 14:09:53.776137500 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:09:53.776138500 end msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:09:53.783489500 delivery 6438: success: did_1+0+0/
2006-07-04 14:09:53.783495500 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:09:53.783497500 end msg 4218966
2006-07-04 14:10:03.010237500 new msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:10:03.010241500 info msg 4218965: bytes 13890 from <george@remote.domain> qp 12807 uid 404
2006-07-04 14:10:03.023047500 starting delivery 6439: msg 4218965 to local markw@myserver.domain
2006-07-04 14:10:03.023051500 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:10:03.034827500 delivery 6439: success: did_1+0+0/
2006-07-04 14:10:03.034832500 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:10:03.034835500 end msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:11:11.407482500 new msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:11:11.407487500 info msg 4218965: bytes 2527 from <> qp 12832 uid 404
2006-07-04 14:11:11.419953500 starting delivery 6440: msg 4218965 to remote george@remote.domain
2006-07-04 14:11:11.419958500 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
2006-07-04 14:11:11.700206500 delivery 6440: success: 208.50.8.161_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/
2006-07-04 14:11:11.700212500 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:11:11.700214500 end msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:11:39.622825500 new msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:11:39.622829500 info msg 4218965: bytes 15268 from <george@remote.domain> qp 12843 uid 404
2006-07-04 14:11:39.634230500 starting delivery 6441: msg 4218965 to local markw@myserver.domain
2006-07-04 14:11:39.634234500 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:11:39.647599500 delivery 6441: success: did_1+0+0/
2006-07-04 14:11:39.647605500 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:11:39.647607500 end msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:12:59.472370500 new msg 4218965
2006-07-04 14:12:59.472375500 info msg 4218965: bytes 36830 from <george@remote.domain> qp 12868 uid 404
2006-07-04 14:12:59.484048500 starting delivery 6442: msg 4218965 to local alias-localdelivery-chris@tapiochre.co.uk
2006-07-04 14:12:59.484052500 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:12:59.503832500 new msg 4218966
2006-07-04 14:12:59.503837500 info msg 4218966: bytes 36954 from <george@remote.domain> qp 12873 uid 400
2006-07-04 14:12:59.507682500 starting delivery 6443: msg 4218966 to local chris@myserver.domain
2006-07-04 14:12:59.507689500 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:12:59.507691500 delivery 6442: success: forward:_qp_12873/did_0+0+1/
2006-07-04 14:12:59.507693500 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
2006-07-04 14:12:59.507695500 end msg 4218965


Is the remote sender messing up here and what could I do to advise him/her of what I see?

Thanks

Chris

[kruhm]

It's the same 2 message numbers.

Did you reboot yet? Or stop and restart qmail & clamav?

[CharlieBrady]

It's the same 2 message numbers.

qmail reuses message numbers once they are free.

Did you reboot yet? Or stop and restart qmail & clamav?

That probably wouldn't help. Better to actually diagnose the problem.

Looking in the smtp daemon log (mailfront) would show if messages were arriving from outside. The content of the messages will reveal how they were generated and where they have been in transit. Problem is likely to be at the remote end. Obfuscating the logs doesn't help us to diagnose the problem.

Chris, I'd suggest you search the net for a tutorial on diagnosing email transport problems. You'll reap the investment soon enough.

[Ness]

By chance, I got in touch with the sender's ISP (Global Crossing).

They reported that the mail was sent many times over because they didn't get a response from my end. Unsure if I beleive this though. Within 24 hours of raising it with them, the mails stopped arriving and the 'fulat' resolved.

BTW Charlie, thanks. When I get time, I will do some reading. Did u know though, that when you use the term "obfuscating" as in 'confusing', it confuses me! I have to translate your notes sometimes using a thesaurus.

Sure would be easier if you simply said "looking in the wrong log"!

Cheers

Chris

[CharlieBrady]

Did u know though, that when you use the term "obfuscating" as in 'confusing', it confuses me! I have to translate your notes sometimes using a thesaurus.

I did not mean "confusing" when I said "obfuscating". I meant "changing the details of the log in order to hide information".

[CharlieBrady]

They reported that the mail was sent many times over because they didn't get a response from my end.

Which would be correct behaviour of their MTA. If you ever see duplicate delivery of mail it will almost always be because the mail was delivered, but the correct status was not returned to the sending MTA.

Unsure if I beleive this though.

Your log files might tell you. If mailfront is passing mail directly to qmail there is very little which can go wrong. If you have virus or spam filtering inserted, there's much more chance of something going wrong, including connection timeout.

[Ness]

I did not mean "confusing" when I said "obfuscating". I meant "changing the details of the log in order to hide information".

Gotcha. If only you'd said that in the first place!