Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492109FB20D for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99762-09 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C739FAA6E for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDBA118D1DF for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99903-06; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-137-79-174.eastlink.ca [24.137.79.174]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83374118B40A; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D9948ECD; Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:01:43 -0400 (AST) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:01:43 -0400 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Magnus Hagander cc: Kevin Hunter , PostgreSQL www Subject: Re: email is fast! Message-ID: <4308AA640AC951EDA7E58305@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <45CA50E1.6090109@hagander.net> References: <200702020546.l125kPN11116@momjian.us> <20070202082145.GC20955@svr2.hagander.net> <45C8FDA1.7050903@earlham.edu> <45CA50E1.6090109@hagander.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200702/143 X-Sequence-Number: 11548 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - --On Wednesday, February 07, 2007 23:21:21 +0100 Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> Well, yeah, it's much better, and quite often it is that fast. And then >>>> suddenly something happens and you have a 4-6 hour delay on a couple of >>>> mails, while others go through. But the speed-when-things-are-working is >>>> good, yes :-P >>> Being a fairly new lurker to the Postgresql lists, what is the reason for >>> the speed delay? I, too, have a 3-5 hour delay, but I thought it was >>> something to do with my end and greylisting. Now I'm not sure . . . :/ >> >> Just to follow up this one ... Kevin sent me an email including the full >> headers for one that took 12 hours to be delivered ... using the QUEUE ID, I >> checked the logs and it turns out that the mail server couldn't resolve the >> MX the first and second time it tried to deliver, but succeeded on the >> third ... > > This sounds scaringly close to the problem we had on wwwmaster with it > not delivering emails. Resolving separately looked fine, but sendmail > couldn't resolve. > Could it be symptoms of the same problem? Does postfix do any 'caching of results'? For instance, if it got a failed response, would it cache that and re-use that later, pending it timing out in its own cache? So try 1 failed, try 2 used cache and failed, try 3 was after cache timed out and re-tried, at which point the local DNS server had the right value ... - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFylpX4QvfyHIvDvMRAiRRAJwPkc49srmVPpyvARtqmsj4AkdDbwCeJAkD 1uOaaNeElpjYlfebp7PkYHI= =FYu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----