Issue 67403 - users@de.openoffice.org has intolerable delay
Summary: users@de.openoffice.org has intolerable delay
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Infrastructure
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: Mailing lists (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 Trivial with 2 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Unknown
QA Contact: issues@www
URL:
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-07-15 17:17 UTC by Regina Henschel
Modified: 2009-12-14 07:46 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
two example mails (5.51 KB, text/plain)
2006-07-15 17:18 UTC, Regina Henschel
no flags Details
cited answer from t-online support newsgroup (4.30 KB, text/plain)
2006-07-26 11:24 UTC, Regina Henschel
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Regina Henschel 2006-07-15 17:17:37 UTC
The mailinglist users@de.openoffice.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 users@de.openoffice.org 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 5.7.1 204.16.104.2 has been blocked by spamcop
Giving up on 62.156.147.75.

---------- 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 ([204.16.104.2]) 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 ([204.16.104.2]) 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_194.25.134.75_but_greeting_failed./R
emote_host_said:_421_IP:204.16.104.2_-_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_217.72.192.149_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 todo@rx.t-online.de. 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_194.25.134.75_but_greeting_failed./R
>>emote_host_said:_421_IP:204.16.104.2_-_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 todo@rx.t-online.de 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  todo@rx.t-online.de
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 [204.16.104.2] (helo=openoffice.org)
	by mx41.web.de with smtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #314)
	id 1NJXyl-0000e0-00
	for b_kloss@web.de; 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 users-help@de.openoffice.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
list-help: <mailto:users-help@de.openoffice.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@de.openoffice.org>
list-post: <mailto:users@de.openoffice.org>
Reply-To: users@de.openoffice.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@de.openoffice.org
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 <b_kloss@web.de>
Reply-To: b_kloss@web.de
To: OO Liste <users@de.openoffice.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: <200912091742.35364.b_kloss@web.de>
Sender: b_kloss@web.de
X-Sender: b_kloss@web.de
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18K+BEs6zeUjRRev7lDfDYMHZIYGa7ob5RjCzEK
	/TMb18+jq1GSmEjV3l5TgnXxGdBC5OJwDJNoCN2SFTKt205wZM
	Kc8Z9wITw=
Subject: [de-users] Extensions im Netzwerk
Return-Path: users-return-91851-b_kloss=web.de@de.openoffice.org