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

Re: Q: Sendmail -- working around overly long greet pauses



Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm trying to deliver email to some sites that seem to have
obnoxiously long greet pause configured (yes, it's a
Chinese site, and yes, it's their contact address for reporting
abuse... guess they aren't about to make it easy to do):

# date ; sendmail -q -v ; date
Tue Feb 20 12:41:19 MST 2007

Running /var/spool/mqueue/l1J1BZTd015129 (sequence 1 of 4)
<anti-spam ns chinanet cn net>... Connecting to ns.chinanet.cn.net. via esmtp...<anti-spam ns chinanet cn net>... Deferred: Connection timed out with ns.chinanet.cn.net.

Running /var/spool/mqueue/l1HKVCiu004463 (sequence 2 of 4)
<anti-spam ns chinanet cn net>... Deferred: Connection timed out with ns.chinanet.cn.net.

Running /var/spool/mqueue/l1HKWqcD004481 (sequence 3 of 4)
<anti-spam ns chinanet cn net>... Deferred: Connection timed out with ns.chinanet.cn.net.

Running /var/spool/mqueue/l1GKJkvD011374 (sequence 4 of 4)
<anti-spam ns chinanet cn net>... Deferred: Connection timed out with ns.chinanet.cn.net.
Tue Feb 20 12:44:29 MST 2007
#


I've tried bumping the connect timeout:

define(`confTO_CONNECT', `5m')dnl

(which results in "O Timeout.connect=5m")...  as well as
running sendmail as:

sendmail -q -v -O Timeout.connect=5m -O Timeout.initial=5m

but this doesn't seem to make any difference.  It looks like
the kernel's internal maximum timeout on a connect() is forcing
a shorter interval.

Anyone know what the workaround for this is?  Do I need to force
the kernel's TCP connect() timeout to something larger?

Before you try fixing anything please try....

telnet ns.chinanet.cn.net 25

It never answers the call.  At least not from Taiwan.




--
"May your future be limited only by your dreams."
-- Christa McAuliffe


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