Issue 25375

Summary: OOo mailing lists have erratic behaviour after upgrade
Product: Infrastructure Reporter: sander_traveling
Component: Mailing listsAssignee: Unknown <non-migrated>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: issues@www <issues>
Severity: Trivial    
Priority: P1 (highest) CC: issues, pavel
Version: current   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Issue Type: DEFECT Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---
Attachments:
Description Flags
Log file with connections being refused by primary MX none

Description sander_traveling 2004-02-11 15:06:40 UTC
The mailing list behaviour after OpenOffice.org hardware upgrade is very erratic
- many mails have a very long delay from send to delivery (4 hours to more) and
mails are being delivered out of order compared to send times and order.
Comment 1 sander_traveling 2004-02-11 15:10:17 UTC
asign to support@
Comment 2 pavel 2004-02-11 16:10:32 UTC
This is because:

pavel@pavel:~> host -t MX openoffice.org
openoffice.org mail is handled by 5 asmx1.sfo.collab.net.
openoffice.org mail is handled by 20 openoffice.org.

The primary MX:
pavel@pavel:~> telnet asmx1.sfo.collab.net 25
Trying 64.125.133.81...
telnet: connect to address 64.125.133.81: Connection refused

... refuses connections.

pavel@pavel:~> telnet asmx1.sfo.collab.net 25
Trying 64.125.133.81...

Or something on the road to it filters packets...

I'm in CET timezone and my log contains (grep asmx1.sfo.collab.net mail|grep
refused) 53 occurences of such condition. Log attached.

Why we do not have P0? This is P0 because without this, the development and all
comunication is equal to 0.
Comment 3 pavel 2004-02-11 16:11:21 UTC
Created attachment 13060 [details]
Log file with connections being refused by primary MX
Comment 4 sander_traveling 2004-02-11 16:19:00 UTC
But what would having P0 do over the present p1-s? either highest priority
issues get attention fast and then get fixed fast or not, changing numbers won't
help a lot 8-(
Comment 5 Unknown 2004-02-11 16:21:13 UTC
closing as dupe of 24914

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 24914 ***
Comment 6 Unknown 2004-08-31 18:21:06 UTC
Closing this issue.