X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD38D8BBF for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:05:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03374-05 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:05:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A63D8B50 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:05:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59AF64BC7E for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:06:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23621-03; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:05:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-82-85.eastlink.ca [24.222.82.85]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B151C64BC5F; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:05:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68B7235569; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:06:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E3833C57; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:06:05 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 14:06:05 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: Bruce Momjian Cc: PostgreSQL www Subject: Re: Lost patches email In-Reply-To: <200510081659.j98Gxj509062@candle.pha.pa.us> Message-ID: <20051008140517.C1477@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200510081659.j98Gxj509062@candle.pha.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.342 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/15 X-Sequence-Number: 8603 On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >> Actually, I suspect that won't work anyway, since now its a duplicate of >> one that was already processed, which is why it would fail ... >> >> We'll have to keep a close eye on this for the next one you know didn't go >> through, and I'm waiting for details from the developers on how I can >> improve reporting without filling up the file system with debug messages >> :( > > OK, the repost went through. Seems somehow the original email did not > get processed, and my bounces are automatically deleted, but a new email > worked. Strange. According to our end, your original did get processed, but failed ... the problem is, there are no details (that I can find) on *why* it failed ... that is what I sent out to the developers, how to determine why it failed without having to turn debug logging *way* up :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664