Gerhard Niklasch on Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:56:25 +0100 (MET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [ ezmlm response]

(I hate to do this, Ilya likes to do this, in this case I have to do this:
A courtesy copy of this messages is being sent to Ilya directly.)

In response to:
> From  Mon Mar 22 20:08:31 1999
> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:08:16 -0500
> From: Ilya Zakharevich <>
> To: Developers Pari <>
> Subject: [ ezmlm response]
> Message-ID: <>

You might try contacting Dan J Bernstein directly at djb(at)
or djb(at) if it looks as if ezmlm was unsubscribing you address
from pari-dev.  Or simply re-subscribe.  Despite what the message below
says, I think the problem was a temporary one, or else you wouldn't have
received the subsequent autoresponses.

[snip ahead]

> I've got the following mail from your daemon.  As you can see,
> pari-dev tried to send a malformed mail (with invalid domain of the
> sender).

Well, not pari-dev's or ezmlm's fault...

> Please let me know if you think some aspect of our mail config is broken.

Probably not at this point in time.

(By the way, did you receive messages from this list since dev-461?
Any?  Some but not all?  All?)

> To:
> Subject: failure notice
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> <>:
> Connected to but sender was rejected.

That's the mail exchanger for noting a rejection by the
primary mail exchanger for

> Remote host said:

I.e., said to in response
to the `MAIL From:' SMTP command:

> 501 <>...
>   Sender domain must exist

I.e., (should have) looked up
in DNS and got an answer from some DNS server claiming it did not exist.

It does exist for me, now, and it does have an MX (mail exchanger) record.

Possible causes:
(1) Temporarily flaky DNS at Ohio State returning bogus answers.
(2) Temporarily flaky DNS for
(3) Someone fiddling with mail configuration on
and getting it into a state where it issued the above permanent failure
status code _although_ it could have looked up in DNS and
_would_ have found it there.  Overzealous spam protection measures being
added or some such thing.

My 100 quatloos are on (3).

Cheers, Gerhard

(away from home and with intermittent email access during this week)