Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing
|Summary:||email@example.com has intolerable delay|
|Product:||Infrastructure||Reporter:||Regina Henschel <rb.henschel>|
|Component:||Mailing lists||Assignee:||Unknown <non-migrated>|
|Status:||CLOSED FIXED||QA Contact:||issues@www <issues>|
|Priority:||P3||CC:||issues, lsuarezpotts, merschmann, rainerbielefeld_ooo_qa, stx123|
|Issue Type:||DEFECT||Latest Confirmation in:||---|
Description Regina Henschel 2006-07-15 17:17:37 UTC
The mailinglist firstname.lastname@example.org has annoying delays, so that you cannot work good with it. You get answers, but you have not received the question. You get your own answer back with a delay of a half to -as some told- many hours. Not everytime and not for all persons. Inspecially persons with account by t-online.de and web.de are affected. I'll attache a mail, so that you see, that the delay is by openoffice.org and not by t-online. T-online give me the advise to ask for a log from t.online. Please have a look, what it wrong with the mailing-list.
Comment 1 Regina Henschel 2006-07-15 17:18:24 UTC
Created attachment 37785 [details] two example mails
Comment 2 Rainer Bielefeld 2006-07-15 17:54:36 UTC
Currently it seems to work, but I also notice that sometimes mail comes with serious delay.
Comment 3 lsuarezpotts 2006-07-16 23:00:27 UTC
assigning to support. My guess is that until there is a specific event that can be traced, a solution will be difficult. However, I think support should monitor this and see if they can usefully intervene. Thanks louis
Comment 4 Unknown 2006-07-17 05:40:54 UTC
Taking up the issue.. Regards, Karthik Support Operations
Comment 5 Rainer Bielefeld 2006-07-18 06:05:05 UTC
Today I've got a bounce listing: ---------- Original Message ---------------- Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the email@example.com mailing list. [...] Here are the message numbers: 53642 53643 53664 53661 53665 53660 53666 53663 53658 53662 53656 53653 53647 53657 53648 53650 53651 53659 53652 53654 53655 53645 53649 53646 53644 53678 53675 53673 53677 53674 53672 53676 53671 53667 53668 53669 53670 53699 53700 53694 53693 53695 53696 53698 53697 53691 53692 53686 53684 53687 53685 53688 53689 53690 53683 53707 53708 53706 53705 53704 53703 53701 53702 53734 53735 53748 53749 53747 53745 53743 53746 53744 53741 53742 53739 53740 53738 53736 53737 54412 54408 54405 54407 54409 54415 54403 54433 54431 54413 54419 54458 54404 54420 54432 54418 54410 54453 54455 54460 54462 54416 54406 54454 54414 54457 54461 54467 54459 54424 54425 54466 54427 54456 54465 54428 54471 54417 54421 54422 54426 54481 54463 54472 54468 54464 54469 54411 54429 54430 54423 54470 --- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received. [...] Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 188.8.131.52 has been blocked by spamcop Giving up on 184.108.40.206. ---------- Original Message ---------------- Might have to to with this problem?
Comment 6 stx123 2006-07-18 12:02:34 UTC
It seems OOo has been in the spamcop blacklist. This has been reported in issue 67362 also. This is no longer the case. But I don't think there is a relation between these two events.
Comment 7 Rainer Bielefeld 2006-07-20 06:54:42 UTC
All that mail service seems to be still unreliable, for example. pls see comments in Issue 67561: I wrote my comment app. 15:30 UTC as expected I got a mail with my comment OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2006 15:45:52.0654 (UTC) ILETIME=[6A5542E0:01C6AB4A] 2 hours later 'nmailhot' wrote a reply but I am still (20 Jul 2006 06:00 UTC) waiting for mail.
Comment 8 Rainer Bielefeld 2006-07-20 07:08:46 UTC
But I received the mail for "Additional comments from rainerbielefeld Wed Jul 19 22:54:42 -0700 2006" immediately.
Comment 9 Unknown 2006-07-20 14:27:26 UTC
We had done check with our mail server and we did not notice any delay in the mails Currently . The mail queue is very normal . I also had sent out a test mail and updated the issue 67613 for which the mails was immediately received . Please confirm if the users are still experiencing mail delays .
Comment 10 Regina Henschel 2006-07-20 15:28:39 UTC
The users is still too slow. Here two datas from today. I can sent whole header if you need it. Message-ID: <44BF9E27.27608.13C7667@Haymo.Mueller.arcor.de> delay 49min: Received: from openoffice.org ([220.127.116.11]) by mailin16.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 1G3ZAM-1hhebo0; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:06:14 +0200 Received: (qmail 21663 invoked by uid 5000); 20 Jul 2006 13:17:06 -0000 Message-ID: <44BF5E7F.19977.9053A8@e.kuchelmeister.freenet.de> delay 47min: Received: from openoffice.org ([18.104.22.168]) by mailin22.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 1G3Utu-0QWwYy0; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:32:58 +0200 Received: (qmail 15169 invoked by uid 5000); 20 Jul 2006 08:45:40 -0000
Comment 11 Unknown 2006-07-25 13:12:12 UTC
Regina , I can answer to the delay that you were facing on the 13th and the 15th . Let me paste an sample entry from the mail log entry to explain this mail delay Jul 13 10:27:31 s002.sjc.collab.net qmail: [ID 748625 mail.info] 1152811651.1561 75 delivery 2564693: deferral: Connected_to_22.214.171.124_but_greeting_failed./R emote_host_said:_421_IP:126.96.36.199_-_Maximum_parallel_connections_for_your_IP- Address_reached/ ... Jul 13 10:27:31 s002.sjc.collab.net qmail: [ID 748625 mail.info] 1152811651.1582 00 delivery 2564692: deferral: Connected_to_188.8.131.52_but_greeting_failed./ Remote_host_said:_421_mx30.web.de:_Too_many_concurrent_SMTP_connections_from_one _IP_address;_please_try_again_later./ So if you have a look at the log information you would notice that the Too_many_ concurrent_SMTP_connection . And according to the engineers this has been notice d across the mail log on the dates mentioned and i assume that this is the same case on the 20th also . So, there are many SMTP servers for t-online.de and web.de domains. And looks like they were refusing our connections because there were too many connections from openoffice.org. The problem was NOT with Spam Filter we are using or with OpenOffice. The problem is with t-online.de and web.de SMTP servers that put limit on how many SMTP connections they allow from openoffice.org. Hope this answers the question on why there is a mail delay .
Comment 12 Regina Henschel 2006-07-26 11:22:52 UTC
Thanks for your explaination. I have forwarded it to a t-online support-newsgroup. I will attach the answer. But it is German and so I try to describe their advice. But I am not sure, whether it is correct in the technical descriptions. t-online uses session limits. There is perhaps a solution: If you are using a session for each email (t-online support guess it), than you should chance this and use one session for more emails. You should ask the t-online postmaster for increasing the session limit for OpenOffice.org. If I understand t-online support correct, you should do this immediately when the problem occurs. You find the address in the logs you have cited. t-online support guesses, it will be firstname.lastname@example.org. The t-online postmaster will not react, if I - as customer - will ask for that, but will only react, if your postmaster contacts him.
Comment 13 Regina Henschel 2006-07-26 11:24:18 UTC
Created attachment 38037 [details] cited answer from t-online support newsgroup
Comment 14 Unknown 2006-07-27 11:12:15 UTC
From the little i could understand and rough translation of what ever was given in the mail i have updated the same in this issue please forgive me if i have completely change the meaning of the sentences . i have forward the request to our engineers . Translation of the mail sent to t-online support : >>I correctly understood (English) the text, look it in such a way, >> the T-Online actually the Mails of OpenOffice.org do not assume. >> because there is too many connections. Now OpenOffice.org is the >> one of the largest open SOURCE of projects and the May run coming >>insbesondere, even if municipalities will transfer to OpenOffice.org, will become more >>sicher not smaller. Is there a possibility that T-Online >>dort other volumes permits? JFTR: It does not concern here “volumes”. T-Online furnished so-called of session limit on its servers. If the possible number of “open connections” (sessions) is reached to our servers, further sessions are rejected. Yes, the number of sessions is sufficient in all rule. This problem arises usually only if a sender for *jede* *einzelne* email liked to make a new connection. We, the responsible persons of the internal newsgroup consider and see this suboptimal this as a reason for the error messages. Besides would have beside the error message in the Logs, quoted by you, also still time near (!) reacting partner with T-Online to read its, to itself the postmaster (!) the “blocked” server to turn can, if he regards an increase of the session limit as necessary. >>Diese delays obstruct the work however enormously, if one carries out in >>Mailinglisten support, and there are Provider with those her does not >>vorkommen. That this does not occur with other offerers, we keep for relatively simply explainable: Either these offerers use no session limit for the protection of your customers from Spam or however these offerers have less customer, who gets from there enamels sent. >>Connected_to_184.108.40.206_but_greeting_failed./R >>emote_host_said:_421_IP:220.127.116.11_-_Maximum_parallel_connections_for_your_IP- >>Address_reached/ >>... Evenly after this error message would have to be evident in the log of the partners with T-Online. We are afraid that we, the responsible persons of the internal newsgroup of T-Online in this affair little to align know. Us only the reference remains that the postmaster of the dispatching server turns to the address email@example.com specified in the log with high probability and seeks there an increase that of session limit for its (n) servers. Naturally the possibility would remain alternative the fact that the postmaster for each a new session “do not open email” leaves but in-supplies the Mails at customers of T-Online over only one session. JFTR: If *Sie* to the address mentioned should turn, might be a little helpful this. There one becomes in this affair exclusively with the postmaster of the server concerned to communicate want. >>assume that this is the same case on the 20th also . So, there are many >>SMTP servers for t-online.de and web.de domains. And looks like they >>were refusing our connections because there were too many connections >from openoffice.org. Regarding T-Online: Session limit for everyone ours mailins are separately regarded. Thus must have thus been achieved the limit for *jeden* our MXe. Differently said: There is one *Menge* open sessions, before the session CONTROLLER “slams shut” . >>The problem was NOT with Spam Filter we are using or with OpenOffice. In principle: Yes. However…; -) >>The problem is with t-online.de and web.de SMTP servers that put limit >>on how many SMTP connections they allow from openoffice.org. For T-Online: This is correct. Thus the postmaster should contact either the partner specified above to let increase by the limit or not open however for each email a new session. We pass this on gladly internally, assume however an establishment of contact postmaster of openoffice.org also firstname.lastname@example.org is essential, in order to reach an increase of the limit.
Comment 15 Unknown 2006-08-04 05:14:23 UTC
Regina , We feel that its would be better if Stefan or one of the OO.O community People/Leaders speak to t-online. Also we would have a problem with communication since we don't speak German. St : Hope this is ok with you .
Comment 16 Regina Henschel 2006-08-05 11:50:07 UTC
I doubt, that this would work. It is a pure technical problem. As I wrote, T-online support told me, that your administrator should communicate with T-online administrator. You need not to speak German, the responsible T-online person is surely able to communicate in English.
Comment 17 Unknown 2006-08-07 11:46:11 UTC
Regina , I understand your position however lets give a shot on St/Louis or any of community leaders talking to the provider t-online directly for resolving this issue. In case if St/Louis are unable to resolve the issue then we can see whether we could step in and talk to the provider. -jobin.
Comment 18 lsuarezpotts 2006-08-10 17:02:17 UTC
reassigning to ST. ST, I can speak to T-Online, if you like.
Comment 19 stx123 2006-08-30 11:47:17 UTC
I will contact T-Online to raise the limit. I'll update this issue about the result. However imposing a limit on concurrent sessions is quite common and it's not feasible to contact providers we face problems with. May I ask to avoid the problems with delivery delays by reusing SMTP connections and limiting the number of outgoing SMTP connections.
Comment 20 Unknown 2006-09-06 10:41:50 UTC
Your feedback has been forwarded to the engineers via the internal issue . Would get back to you soon with their response .
Comment 21 Unknown 2006-09-11 07:57:47 UTC
St, The options you have provided are valid ones however the current MTA set up doesnt allow this facility . Reusing SMTP connections, meaning sending multiple messages per one SMTP session is not possible using our current MTA to delivery mail. Since it delivers one message per one SMTP session. Limiting number of outgoing SMTP connections will also cause delay in mail delivery as well. However the good news is the New MTA in DS does allow us the facility which you have mentioned by making use "connection caching" by which we can deliver multiple messages over the same SMTP connection. I am going to close this issue since the original request by the user would be taken care internally by Stefan . -Jobin.
Comment 22 stx123 2006-09-19 22:03:21 UTC
I guess you don't mind, if we file a separate issue proposing an enhancement "Reuse SMTP connections".
Comment 23 ace_dent 2008-05-17 20:59:25 UTC
The Issue you raised has been marked as 'Resolved' and not updated within the last 1 year+. I am therefore setting this issue to 'Verified' as the first step towards Closing it. If you feel this is incorrect, please re-open the issue and add any comments. Many thanks, Andrew Cleaning-up and Closing old Issues ~ The Grand Bug Squash, pre v3 ~ http://marketing.openoffice.org/3.0/announcementbeta.html
Comment 24 ace_dent 2008-05-17 23:01:17 UTC
As per previous posting: Verified -> Closed. A Closed Issue is a Happy Issue (TM). Regards, Andrew
Comment 25 max_mad 2009-12-13 08:00:28 UTC
The problem is still existing. Delays up to 3 days!
Comment 26 bernd_k 2009-12-14 07:29:54 UTC
At the moment there are delays of several days for some mails, others only hours. Could you please check again? Thanks.
Comment 27 bernd_k 2009-12-14 07:46:41 UTC
This header tells me, that the mail has been received on Dec. 9 by OO and came back to me on Dec 12. What happened in between? Received: from [18.104.22.168] (helo=openoffice.org) by mx41.web.de with smtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #314) id 1NJXyl-0000e0-00 for email@example.com; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:50:11 +0100 Received: (qmail 18384 invoked by uid 5000); 9 Dec 2009 16:43:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes list-help: <mailto:email@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> list-post: <mailto:email@example.com> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com Received: (qmail 18367 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2009 16:43:30 -0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8CAGNiH0vZSMDjaGdsb2JhbACBTIJalzoNCwMHBxMDqyqQJAKBLYIqUwSBYg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,369,1257148800"; d="scan'208";a="33797122" X-IRONPORT: SCANNED From: Bernd Kloss <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reply-To: email@example.com To: OO Liste <firstname.lastname@example.org> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:42:35 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Sender: email@example.com X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18K+BEs6zeUjRRev7lDfDYMHZIYGa7ob5RjCzEK /TMb18+jq1GSmEjV3l5TgnXxGdBC5OJwDJNoCN2SFTKt205wZM Kc8Z9wITw= Subject: [de-users] Extensions im Netzwerk Return-Path: firstname.lastname@example.org