On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 08:01:53 +0200, "J.T. Wenting" writes:
>> >I mean, I pay for their service, regardless of how intensively I use it.
>>
>> Let me guess: "unlimited (fair use)" or friends somewhere in the
>> contract? That´s a marketing gag, nothing else. Most, if not all, ISPs
>> have a *very*
> >I mean, I pay for their service, regardless of how intensively I use it.
>
> Let me guess: "unlimited (fair use)" or friends somewhere in the
> contract? That´s a marketing gag, nothing else. Most, if not all, ISPs
> have a *very* clear idea what "fair use" is in GB/month...real flat
> rates
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:03:15 +0200, Sven Burgener writes:
>But, it's none of their fsck'ing business what I do behind my little
>468/25 box. :-P
That´s correct.
>I mean, I pay for their service, regardless of how intensively I use it.
Let me guess: "unlimited (fair use)" or friends somewhere in
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:19:42 +0200, Sven Burgener writes:
>it's me again. Problem's solved.
that´s good ;-)
>On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:29:08AM -0700, Nate Amsden wrote:
>> i agree with robert, it must be a prob with your ISP.
>
>In fact you're correct. The problem was at our provider whose route
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:44:11PM -0700, Nate Amsden wrote:
> > (Although I didn't know that they "proxy" our outgoing SMTP connects.
> > Is this "usual"? Never seen it before. I can only see it in the headers.)
> While i haven't encountered it personally im not suprised that a cable
> ISP(i thin
Sven Burgener wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> it's me again. Problem's solved.
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:29:08AM -0700, Nate Amsden wrote:
> > i agree with robert, it must be a prob with your ISP.
>
> In fact you're correct. The problem was at our provider whose routers
> / mail servers weren't pl
Hi guys,
it's me again. Problem's solved.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:29:08AM -0700, Nate Amsden wrote:
> i agree with robert, it must be a prob with your ISP.
In fact you're correct. The problem was at our provider whose routers
/ mail servers weren't playing like they intended them to.
(Althou
i agree with robert, it must be a prob with your ISP.
and that FAQ is for ANY kind of connection not just slip/ppp. as for not
being able to reconfigure...id get a new isp!! cable isps are not
friendly to servers.
another thing to try, try sending the same mails using a "normal" mail
client that
Nate Amsden wrote:
> are all the mails going to different hosts? or is your isp doing relay
> for you ? could be a problem with the ISP, according to the sendmail
Yes, just one relay.
> FAQ. from the looks of what you pasted everything seems to be going thru
> 1 remote host, if this is the case,
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:40:04 +0200, Sven Burgener writes:
DATA
>354 Ok Send data ending with .
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... I/O error
This means your ISP has troubles (probably a too-full disk) on their
mailserver. Phone them and complain. If they´re not wanting to accept
mail bigger than <$SIZE>
are all the mails going to different hosts? or is your isp doing relay
for you ? could be a problem with the ISP, according to the sendmail
FAQ. from the looks of what you pasted everything seems to be going thru
1 remote host, if this is the case, then i'd suggest reconfiguring
sendmail so this do
Hello
I have a truly annoying and urgent problem with sendmail. Particularly
bigger mails containing attachments cannot be delivered. They always end
up sitting around in the queue with I/O errors, after unsuccessful
attempt of delivery.
On the system, there are many sendmail processes up, yet the
12 matches
Mail list logo
