Email bouncing


#21

Mee too

I got two messages overnight that were originally sent the morning of the 16th. Relevant headers follow:

Received: from deathwish.dreamhost.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (deathwish [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12889-05 for <xxxxxxxx@synaesthetic.net>; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.24]) by deathwish.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1825545B for <xxxxxxxx@synaesthetic.net>; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:59:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19509 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2005 14:59:34 -0000 Received: from berlin.synaesthetic.net (HELO [10.23.1.104]) ([69.17.54.50]) (envelope-sender <xxxxxxxx@sims.berkeley.edu>) by mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <xxxxxxxx@synaesthetic.net>; 16 Mar 2005 14:59:33 -0000
If you want useful replies, ask smart questions.


#22

Thanks, but that ~40hr delay is not on “sack” but on the junk filter machine “deathwish”, which doesn’t surprise.

If we’re not seeing delays on /non/-JF mail. I’m not worried.


#23

Delayed mail is delayed mail. The important thing to note here is that this mail wasn’t spam, nor was it flagged as such, so the fact that it was delayed going through the filter machines specifically isn’t really relevant.

Why is delayed mail more acceptable or less surprising if it goes through one group of machines as opposed to another?


If you want useful replies, ask smart questions.


#24

It is less surprising to me because I know the JF machines cause undue delays. I’d hope that’s likewise known to everyone looking for a goog mail serverice and having taken care to research and test before choosing a candidate.