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 01B96D8C85 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:09 -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 38119-10 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 19:58:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE80AD9001 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD8964C085 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:15 -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 57045-04; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 19:57:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-82-85.eastlink.ca [24.222.82.85]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5214F64BFF9; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EEFC434E95; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DE4342B0; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:19 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 16:58:19 -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: <200510081739.j98HddA14588@candle.pha.pa.us> Message-ID: <20051008165717.Y1477@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200510081739.j98HddA14588@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=0.341 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.291, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/21 X-Sequence-Number: 8609 On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> 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 :( > > So you do see a failure on your end, but no specification? This is correct ... one of the 'rules' appears to be being triggered, but the system either doesn't record *which* rules (based on default debugging level), or I can't find where its recorded ... which is why I've sent a note to the mj developers ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664