Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>:
Bug#39726; Package exim.   debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgMark Baker  Subject: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. Reply-To: Patrik Rak , 39726@bugs.debian.org Resent-From: Patrik Rak Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-CC: Mark Baker Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:48:11 GMT Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: iwj@debian.org X-Debian-PR-Message: report 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org Received: via spool by bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B.9297242474839 (code B ref -1); Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:48:11 GMT From: Patrik Rak To: submit@bugs.debian.org X-Mailer: bug 3.2.2 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 Package: exim Version: 2.11-4 Severity: wishlist Hi! The retry logic of exim (at least the one caused by eximconfig retry rule) is not very well designed for people who connect to the Internet only occasionally. For example, assume I write an email to someone and I don't mind if it stays in the queue until I use my dial up next time. If I forget to call for some time, I get the warning messages and then finally the mail is returned. OK, that's not the problem. The real problem is caused by the following exim behavior (quoted from oview.txt): When the maximum time for retrying has passed, pending addresses are failed. However, a next try time is still computed from the final subrule. Until that time is reached, any new messages for the address are immediately failed. When the next try time is passed, one further delivery attempt is made; if this fails, a new next try time is computed, and so on. You see? This means that once I get the mail bounced, all mail for that address is bounced immediately. And as I use dial up only when necessary (i.e., not on "computer's" demand), the chance that my computer will be able to connect during the next cycle (8 hours in default config) is almost zero. So, the only way out of this is to delete the retry database, which is not very comfortable for casual user, is it? Note that this is not a theoretical example, it has really happened. May be the author should consider implementing some way of disabling this feature in the retry rule. Patrik P.S. Maybe this is the reason for events described in #38723 too. -- System Information Debian Release: potato Kernel Version: Linux eagle 2.0.36 #3 Mon Mar 22 10:52:34 CET 1999 i586 unknown Versions of the packages exim depends on: ii cron 3.0pl1-51 management of regular background processing ii libc6 2.1.1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and timezone ii libident 0.22-1 simple RFC1413 client library - runtime ii libpcre2 2.05-1 Philip Hazel's Perl Compatible Regular Expre --- Begin /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim (modified conffile) Config file not present or no permissions for access --- End /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim   Acknowledgement sent to Patrik Rak <patrik@ein.cz>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>.   -t  From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) To: Patrik Rak Subject: Bug#39726: Acknowledgement (exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection.) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Debian-PR-Message: ack 39726 Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian. This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has been received. It is being forwarded to the developers' mailing list for their attention; they will reply in due course. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): Mark Baker If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send it to 39726@bugs.debian.org (and *not* to bugs@bugs.debian.org). Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (administrator, Debian bugs database)   Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 4832 invoked from network); 18 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0000 Received: from challenger.ein.cz (212.24.139.66) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 3150 invoked from network); 18 Jun 1999 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from mesquite.ein.cz (HELO eagle.int.ein.cz) (nekdo@212.24.139.67) by challenger.ein.cz with SMTP; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from patrik by eagle.int.ein.cz with local (Exim 2.11 #1 (Debian)) id 10v1kI-0000Rs-00; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 From: Patrik Rak Subject: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. To: submit@bugs.debian.org X-Mailer: bug 3.2.2 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 Package: exim Version: 2.11-4 Severity: wishlist Hi! The retry logic of exim (at least the one caused by eximconfig retry rule) is not very well designed for people who connect to the Internet only occasionally. For example, assume I write an email to someone and I don't mind if it stays in the queue until I use my dial up next time. If I forget to call for some time, I get the warning messages and then finally the mail is returned. OK, that's not the problem. The real problem is caused by the following exim behavior (quoted from oview.txt): When the maximum time for retrying has passed, pending addresses are failed. However, a next try time is still computed from the final subrule. Until that time is reached, any new messages for the address are immediately failed. When the next try time is passed, one further delivery attempt is made; if this fails, a new next try time is computed, and so on. You see? This means that once I get the mail bounced, all mail for that address is bounced immediately. And as I use dial up only when necessary (i.e., not on "computer's" demand), the chance that my computer will be able to connect during the next cycle (8 hours in default config) is almost zero. So, the only way out of this is to delete the retry database, which is not very comfortable for casual user, is it? Note that this is not a theoretical example, it has really happened. May be the author should consider implementing some way of disabling this feature in the retry rule. Patrik P.S. Maybe this is the reason for events described in #38723 too. -- System Information Debian Release: potato Kernel Version: Linux eagle 2.0.36 #3 Mon Mar 22 10:52:34 CET 1999 i586 unknown Versions of the packages exim depends on: ii cron 3.0pl1-51 management of regular background processing ii libc6 2.1.1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and timezone ii libident 0.22-1 simple RFC1413 client library - runtime ii libpcre2 2.05-1 Philip Hazel's Perl Compatible Regular Expre --- Begin /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim (modified conffile) Config file not present or no permissions for access --- End /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim   Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>:
Bug#39726; Package exim.   debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgMark Baker  Subject: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection Reply-To: Andrea Mennucci , 39726@bugs.debian.org Resent-From: Andrea Mennucci Orignal-Sender: Andrea Mennucci Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-CC: Mark Baker Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:18:04 GMT Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org X-Debian-PR-Message: report 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org Received: via spool by 39726-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B39726.9454438021106 (code B ref 39726); Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:18:04 GMT Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:16:41 +0100 From: Andrea Mennucci To: 39726@bugs.debian.org Cc: Patrik Rak Message-ID: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i Sender: Andrea Mennucci hi I happened to read that bug; I am not completely sure of what the bug description means , but I can tell what I experience. I use exim, and I use Internet thru a dial up connection. When I send a mail, indeed it usually cannot be delivered immediately (since I am, most of the time, off-line): so , exim sets a "retry time". But, when I connect (I use "pon provider" , that calls pppd, that calls "/etc/ppp/ip-up" which in turns executes all scripts like /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim) then the script /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim calls "exim -qf" : this command forces exim to retry all pending messages (regardless of the time passed). So, exim works quite ok for me. If (as I suppose) Patrik Rak is not using pppd to connect, then the bug should be probably reformulated like this : "other PtP programs should use ip-up by default, for exim to work ok " (and, it is not an exim bug) thanks for your attention a.m. -- Andrea C. Mennucci, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy   Acknowledgement sent to Andrea Mennucci <debian@Tonelli.sns.it>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>.   -t  From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) To: Andrea Mennucci Subject: Bug#39726: Info received (was exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> References: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 39726 Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): Mark Baker If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to 39726@bugs.debian.org, as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database)   Received: (at 39726) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Dec 1999 15:16:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 1104 invoked from network); 17 Dec 1999 15:16:40 -0000 Received: from tonelli.sns.it (8@192.84.155.215) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 17 Dec 1999 15:16:40 -0000 Received: from mennucci by Tonelli.sns.it with local (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 11yz7Z-0000GJ-00; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:16:41 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:16:41 +0100 From: Andrea Mennucci To: 39726@bugs.debian.org Cc: Patrik Rak Subject: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection Message-ID: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i Sender: Andrea Mennucci hi I happened to read that bug; I am not completely sure of what the bug description means , but I can tell what I experience. I use exim, and I use Internet thru a dial up connection. When I send a mail, indeed it usually cannot be delivered immediately (since I am, most of the time, off-line): so , exim sets a "retry time". But, when I connect (I use "pon provider" , that calls pppd, that calls "/etc/ppp/ip-up" which in turns executes all scripts like /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim) then the script /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim calls "exim -qf" : this command forces exim to retry all pending messages (regardless of the time passed). So, exim works quite ok for me. If (as I suppose) Patrik Rak is not using pppd to connect, then the bug should be probably reformulated like this : "other PtP programs should use ip-up by default, for exim to work ok " (and, it is not an exim bug) thanks for your attention a.m. -- Andrea C. Mennucci, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy   Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org:
Bug#39726; Package exim.   debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org  Subject: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection Reply-To: Mark Baker , 39726@bugs.debian.org Resent-From: Mark Baker Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:03:09 GMT Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org X-Debian-PR-Message: report 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org Received: via spool by 39726-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B39726.94551708127896 (code B ref 39726); Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:03:09 GMT Message-ID: <19991218111746.A9875@aziraphale.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:17:46 +0000 From: Mark Baker To: Andrea Mennucci , 39726@bugs.debian.org References: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it>; from Andrea Mennucci on Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:16:41PM +0100 On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Andrea Mennucci wrote: > I use exim, and I use Internet thru a dial up connection. So do I. > When I send a mail, indeed it usually cannot be delivered immediately > (since I am, most of the time, off-line): so , exim sets a > "retry time". > > But, when I connect (I use "pon provider" , that calls pppd, that > calls "/etc/ppp/ip-up" which in turns executes all scripts > like /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim) > then the script /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim calls "exim -qf" : > this command forces exim to retry all pending messages > (regardless of the time passed). Yes, that's what I do, too. > So, exim works quite ok for me. > If (as I suppose) Patrik Rak is not using pppd to connect, then > the bug should be probably reformulated like this : > "other PtP programs should use ip-up by default, for exim to work ok " > (and, it is not an exim bug) Most of them do already. What Patrik is complaining about it slightly more subtle than that. If the maximum retry time (4 days) passes then it will bounce the message, and bounce subsequent messages to the same address, until it next successfully connects to that host. However, I would think it rather unlikely that it will get to 4 days without successfully connecting, so I don't think it's a serious problem that the behaviour isn't ideal in this case.   Acknowledgement sent to Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list.   -t  From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) To: Mark Baker Subject: Bug#39726: Info received (was Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <19991218111746.A9875@aziraphale.demon.co.uk> References: <19991218111746.A9875@aziraphale.demon.co.uk> X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 39726 Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to 39726@bugs.debian.org, as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database)   Received: (at 39726) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Dec 1999 11:38:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 27883 invoked from network); 18 Dec 1999 11:38:00 -0000 Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (194.217.242.39) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 18 Dec 1999 11:38:00 -0000 Received: from aziraphale.demon.co.uk ([194.222.242.160]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11zIBK-0007MM-0B; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:37:50 +0000 Received: from mark by aziraphale.demon.co.uk with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian)) id 11zHru-0002Za-00; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:17:46 +0000 Message-ID: <19991218111746.A9875@aziraphale.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:17:46 +0000 From: Mark Baker To: Andrea Mennucci , 39726@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection References: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it>; from Andrea Mennucci on Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:16:41PM +0100 On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Andrea Mennucci wrote: > I use exim, and I use Internet thru a dial up connection. So do I. > When I send a mail, indeed it usually cannot be delivered immediately > (since I am, most of the time, off-line): so , exim sets a > "retry time". > > But, when I connect (I use "pon provider" , that calls pppd, that > calls "/etc/ppp/ip-up" which in turns executes all scripts > like /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim) > then the script /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim calls "exim -qf" : > this command forces exim to retry all pending messages > (regardless of the time passed). Yes, that's what I do, too. > So, exim works quite ok for me. > If (as I suppose) Patrik Rak is not using pppd to connect, then > the bug should be probably reformulated like this : > "other PtP programs should use ip-up by default, for exim to work ok " > (and, it is not an exim bug) Most of them do already. What Patrik is complaining about it slightly more subtle than that. If the maximum retry time (4 days) passes then it will bounce the message, and bounce subsequent messages to the same address, until it next successfully connects to that host. However, I would think it rather unlikely that it will get to 4 days without successfully connecting, so I don't think it's a serious problem that the behaviour isn't ideal in this case.   Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>:
Bug#39726; Package exim.   debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgMark Baker  Subject: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection Reply-To: Patrik Rak , 39726@bugs.debian.org Resent-From: Patrik Rak Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-CC: Mark Baker Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:18:04 GMT Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org X-Debian-PR-Message: report 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org Received: via spool by 39726-bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B39726.94585769211596 (code B ref 39726); Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:18:04 GMT Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:14:48 +0100 (CET) From: Patrik Rak To: Andrea Mennucci Cc: 39726@bugs.debian.org In-Reply-To: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Andrea Mennucci wrote: > I happened to read that bug; I am not completely sure of > what the bug description means , but I can tell what I experience. ... > If (as I suppose) Patrik Rak is not using pppd to connect, then > the bug should be probably reformulated like this : > "other PtP programs should use ip-up by default, for exim to work ok " > (and, it is not an exim bug) Of course I use pppd, and it runs exim -qf for me as well. Please re-read the original bug report. The problem is if mail to some host is bounced because I do not dial up within 8 days (or whatever the limit is), mail for that host keeps bouncing immediately since then. Patrik   Acknowledgement sent to Patrik Rak <patrik@ein.cz>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Mark Baker <mbaker@iee.org>.   -t  From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) To: Patrik Rak Subject: Bug#39726: Info received (was exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 39726 Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): Mark Baker If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to 39726@bugs.debian.org, as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database)   Received: (at 39726) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Dec 1999 10:14:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 11575 invoked from network); 22 Dec 1999 10:14:52 -0000 Received: from bay.ein.cz (212.24.139.122) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 22 Dec 1999 10:14:52 -0000 Received: from eagle.int.ein.cz (eagle.int.ein.cz [192.168.3.129]) by bay.ein.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2B01359F; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:14:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from patrik (helo=localhost) by eagle.int.ein.cz with local-smtp (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian)) id 120inA-0007uo-00; Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:14:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:14:48 +0100 (CET) From: Patrik Rak To: Andrea Mennucci Cc: 39726@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection In-Reply-To: <19991217161641.A972@Tonelli.sns.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Andrea Mennucci wrote: > I happened to read that bug; I am not completely sure of > what the bug description means , but I can tell what I experience. ... > If (as I suppose) Patrik Rak is not using pppd to connect, then > the bug should be probably reformulated like this : > "other PtP programs should use ip-up by default, for exim to work ok " > (and, it is not an exim bug) Of course I use pppd, and it runs exim -qf for me as well. Please re-read the original bug report. The problem is if mail to some host is bounced because I do not dial up within 8 days (or whatever the limit is), mail for that host keeps bouncing immediately since then. Patrik   Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Mark Baker <mark@mnb.org.uk>:
Bug#39726; Package exim.   debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgMark Baker  X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. Reply-To: "Adam D. Barratt" , 39726@bugs.debian.org Resent-From: "Adam D. Barratt" Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-CC: Mark Baker Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:33:14 UTC Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org X-Debian-PR-Message: report 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool by 39726-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B39726.112255737710237 (code B ref 39726); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:33:14 UTC Received: (at 39726) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Jul 2005 13:29:37 +0000 Received: from mail0.avcosystems.co.uk [195.224.236.86] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1Dy8S8-0002bk-00; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:29:37 -0700 Received: from lexx.avco ([192.168.0.1] helo=andromeda) by mail0.avcosystems.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Debian)) id 1Dy8Rd-0006vM-Jf; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:29:05 +0100 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.338 [267.9.6]); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:29:05 +0100 Message-ID: <14af01c59378$536a2130$eb00010a@andromeda> From: "Adam D. Barratt" To: <39726@bugs.debian.org>, <39726-submitter@bugs.debian.org> References: Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:29:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-AVCO-Scan-Signature: f768d1bdd595b427ec29641205b0bc15 Delivered-To: 39726@bugs.debian.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_44,HAS_BUG_NUMBER, VALID_BTS_CONTROL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 package exim tags 39726 + upstream wontfix thanks On Friday, June 18, 1999 5:44 PM, Patrik Rak wrote: > The retry logic of exim (at least the one caused by eximconfig retry > rule) > is not very well designed for people who connect to the Internet only > occasionally. Upstream development on exim 3 stopped over three years ago, and it is no longer Debian's default MTA. The behaviour discussed in this bug report is never going to change / be fixed in the Debian packages, so I'm tagging the report to indicate that. Regards, Adam   Tags added: upstream, wontfix Request was from "Adam D. Barratt" <debian-bts@adam-barratt.org.uk> to control@bugs.debian.org.   Received: (at control) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Jul 2005 13:29:37 +0000 From debian-bts@adam-barratt.org.uk Thu Jul 28 06:29:37 2005 Return-path: Received: from mail0.avcosystems.co.uk [195.224.236.86] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1Dy8S8-0002bk-00; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:29:37 -0700 Received: from lexx.avco ([192.168.0.1] helo=andromeda) by mail0.avcosystems.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Debian)) id 1Dy8Rd-0006vM-Jf; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:29:05 +0100 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.338 [267.9.6]); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:29:05 +0100 Message-ID: <14af01c59378$536a2130$eb00010a@andromeda> From: "Adam D. Barratt" To: <39726@bugs.debian.org>, <39726-submitter@bugs.debian.org> References: Subject: Re: Bug#39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:29:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-AVCO-Scan-Signature: f768d1bdd595b427ec29641205b0bc15 Delivered-To: control@bugs.debian.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_44,HAS_BUG_NUMBER, VALID_BTS_CONTROL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2 package exim tags 39726 + upstream wontfix thanks On Friday, June 18, 1999 5:44 PM, Patrik Rak wrote: > The retry logic of exim (at least the one caused by eximconfig retry > rule) > is not very well designed for people who connect to the Internet only > occasionally. Upstream development on exim 3 stopped over three years ago, and it is no longer Debian's default MTA. The behaviour discussed in this bug report is never going to change / be fixed in the Debian packages, so I'm tagging the report to indicate that. Regards, Adam   Reply sent to Barry deFreese <bddebian@comcast.net>:
You have taken responsibility.   -t  MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.420 (Entity 5.420) X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) To: Barry deFreese Subject: Bug#39726: marked as done (exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection.) Message-ID: References: <1208382043.871843.16302.nullmailer@comcast.net> X-Debian-PR-Message: closed 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: wontfix upstream X-Debian-PR-Source: exim Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1208395692-21365-0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1208395692-21365-0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Your message dated Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:40:43 -0400 with message-id <1208382043.871843.16302.nullmailer@comcast.net> and subject line exim has been removed from Debian, closing #39726 has caused the Debian Bug report #39726, regarding exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) --=20 39726: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D39726 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems ------------=_1208395692-21365-0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 4832 invoked from network); 18 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0000 Received: from challenger.ein.cz (212.24.139.66) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 3150 invoked from network); 18 Jun 1999 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from mesquite.ein.cz (HELO eagle.int.ein.cz) (nekdo@212.24.139.67) by challenger.ein.cz with SMTP; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from patrik by eagle.int.ein.cz with local (Exim 2.11 #1 (Debian)) id 10v1kI-0000Rs-00; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 From: Patrik Rak Subject: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. To: submit@bugs.debian.org X-Mailer: bug 3.2.2 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 Package: exim Version: 2.11-4 Severity: wishlist Hi! The retry logic of exim (at least the one caused by eximconfig retry rule) is not very well designed for people who connect to the Internet only occasionally. For example, assume I write an email to someone and I don't mind if it stays in the queue until I use my dial up next time. If I forget to call for some time, I get the warning messages and then finally the mail is returned. OK, that's not the problem. The real problem is caused by the following exim behavior (quoted from oview.txt): When the maximum time for retrying has passed, pending addresses are failed. However, a next try time is still computed from the final subrule. Until that time is reached, any new messages for the address are immediately failed. When the next try time is passed, one further delivery attempt is made; if this fails, a new next try time is computed, and so on. You see? This means that once I get the mail bounced, all mail for that address is bounced immediately. And as I use dial up only when necessary (i.e., not on "computer's" demand), the chance that my computer will be able to connect during the next cycle (8 hours in default config) is almost zero. So, the only way out of this is to delete the retry database, which is not very comfortable for casual user, is it? Note that this is not a theoretical example, it has really happened. May be the author should consider implementing some way of disabling this feature in the retry rule. Patrik P.S. Maybe this is the reason for events described in #38723 too. -- System Information Debian Release: potato Kernel Version: Linux eagle 2.0.36 #3 Mon Mar 22 10:52:34 CET 1999 i586 unknown Versions of the packages exim depends on: ii cron 3.0pl1-51 management of regular background processing ii libc6 2.1.1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and timezone ii libident 0.22-1 simple RFC1413 client library - runtime ii libpcre2 2.05-1 Philip Hazel's Perl Compatible Regular Expre --- Begin /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim (modified conffile) Config file not present or no permissions for access --- End /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim ------------=_1208395692-21365-0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 39726-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Apr 2008 01:26:09 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2006-07-26) on rietz.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=no version=3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Return-path: Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.56]) by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JmIt6-0004iw-TA for 39726-done@bugs.debian.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:26:09 +0000 Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EMTh1Z00617dt5G560C700; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:24:39 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([71.224.175.179]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ERS41Z00D3sciBK3Z00000; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:26:04 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=h7--_groeaoA:10 a=ECxIkXgHcbUA:10 a=xNf9USuDAAAA:8 a=4R3UzAt-SoKSjXdOBbcA:9 a=FU2Jw3VsHMYcqgDMxd8A:7 a=gA4t5htGNQA5YkXD4QqwQeih0C4A:4 a=10sAvMsTeQkA:10 Received: (nullmailer pid 16303 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:40:43 -0000 From: Barry deFreese To: 39726-done@bugs.debian.org Subject: exim has been removed from Debian, closing #39726 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:40:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1208382043.871843.16302.nullmailer@comcast.net> Version: 3.36-18.2+rm The exim package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened against it. For more information about this package's removal, read http://bugs.debian.org/420191 . That bug might give the reasons why this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements. Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question. Thank you for your contribution to Debian. Barry deFreese ------------=_1208395692-21365-0--   Notification sent to Patrik Rak <patrik@ein.cz>:
Bug acknowledged by developer.   -t  MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.420 (Entity 5.420) X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System) To: Patrik Rak Subject: Bug#39726 closed by Barry deFreese (exim has been removed from Debian, closing #39726) Message-ID: References: <1208382043.871843.16302.nullmailer@comcast.net> X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 39726 X-Debian-PR-Package: exim X-Debian-PR-Keywords: wontfix upstream X-Debian-PR-Source: exim Reply-To: 39726@bugs.debian.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1208395692-21365-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1208395692-21365-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report which was filed against the exim package: #39726: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. It has been closed by Barry deFreese . Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate message then please contact Barry deFreese by replying to this email. --=20 39726: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D39726 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems ------------=_1208395692-21365-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 39726-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Apr 2008 01:26:09 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2006-07-26) on rietz.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=no version=3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Return-path: Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.56]) by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JmIt6-0004iw-TA for 39726-done@bugs.debian.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:26:09 +0000 Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EMTh1Z00617dt5G560C700; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:24:39 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([71.224.175.179]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ERS41Z00D3sciBK3Z00000; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:26:04 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=h7--_groeaoA:10 a=ECxIkXgHcbUA:10 a=xNf9USuDAAAA:8 a=4R3UzAt-SoKSjXdOBbcA:9 a=FU2Jw3VsHMYcqgDMxd8A:7 a=gA4t5htGNQA5YkXD4QqwQeih0C4A:4 a=10sAvMsTeQkA:10 Received: (nullmailer pid 16303 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:40:43 -0000 From: Barry deFreese To: 39726-done@bugs.debian.org Subject: exim has been removed from Debian, closing #39726 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:40:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1208382043.871843.16302.nullmailer@comcast.net> Version: 3.36-18.2+rm The exim package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened against it. For more information about this package's removal, read http://bugs.debian.org/420191 . That bug might give the reasons why this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements. Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question. Thank you for your contribution to Debian. Barry deFreese ------------=_1208395692-21365-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 4832 invoked from network); 18 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0000 Received: from challenger.ein.cz (212.24.139.66) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 3150 invoked from network); 18 Jun 1999 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from mesquite.ein.cz (HELO eagle.int.ein.cz) (nekdo@212.24.139.67) by challenger.ein.cz with SMTP; 18 Jun 1999 16:44:04 -0000 Received: from patrik by eagle.int.ein.cz with local (Exim 2.11 #1 (Debian)) id 10v1kI-0000Rs-00; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 From: Patrik Rak Subject: exim: The retry rules vs. dial up connection. To: submit@bugs.debian.org X-Mailer: bug 3.2.2 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:44:02 +0200 Package: exim Version: 2.11-4 Severity: wishlist Hi! The retry logic of exim (at least the one caused by eximconfig retry rule) is not very well designed for people who connect to the Internet only occasionally. For example, assume I write an email to someone and I don't mind if it stays in the queue until I use my dial up next time. If I forget to call for some time, I get the warning messages and then finally the mail is returned. OK, that's not the problem. The real problem is caused by the following exim behavior (quoted from oview.txt): When the maximum time for retrying has passed, pending addresses are failed. However, a next try time is still computed from the final subrule. Until that time is reached, any new messages for the address are immediately failed. When the next try time is passed, one further delivery attempt is made; if this fails, a new next try time is computed, and so on. You see? This means that once I get the mail bounced, all mail for that address is bounced immediately. And as I use dial up only when necessary (i.e., not on "computer's" demand), the chance that my computer will be able to connect during the next cycle (8 hours in default config) is almost zero. So, the only way out of this is to delete the retry database, which is not very comfortable for casual user, is it? Note that this is not a theoretical example, it has really happened. May be the author should consider implementing some way of disabling this feature in the retry rule. Patrik P.S. Maybe this is the reason for events described in #38723 too. -- System Information Debian Release: potato Kernel Version: Linux eagle 2.0.36 #3 Mon Mar 22 10:52:34 CET 1999 i586 unknown Versions of the packages exim depends on: ii cron 3.0pl1-51 management of regular background processing ii libc6 2.1.1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and timezone ii libident 0.22-1 simple RFC1413 client library - runtime ii libpcre2 2.05-1 Philip Hazel's Perl Compatible Regular Expre --- Begin /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim (modified conffile) Config file not present or no permissions for access --- End /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/exim ------------=_1208395692-21365-1--   Received: (at 39726-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Apr 2008 01:26:09 +0000 From bdefreese@comcast.net Thu Apr 17 01:26:09 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2006-07-26) on rietz.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=no version=3.1.4-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Return-path: Received: from qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.56]) by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JmIt6-0004iw-TA for 39726-done@bugs.debian.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:26:09 +0000 Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id EMTh1Z00617dt5G560C700; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:24:39 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([71.224.175.179]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ERS41Z00D3sciBK3Z00000; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:26:04 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=h7--_groeaoA:10 a=ECxIkXgHcbUA:10 a=xNf9USuDAAAA:8 a=4R3UzAt-SoKSjXdOBbcA:9 a=FU2Jw3VsHMYcqgDMxd8A:7 a=gA4t5htGNQA5YkXD4QqwQeih0C4A:4 a=10sAvMsTeQkA:10 Received: (nullmailer pid 16303 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:40:43 -0000 From: Barry deFreese To: 39726-done@bugs.debian.org Subject: exim has been removed from Debian, closing #39726 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:40:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1208382043.871843.16302.nullmailer@comcast.net> Version: 3.36-18.2+rm The exim package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened against it. For more information about this package's removal, read http://bugs.debian.org/420191 . That bug might give the reasons why this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements. Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question. Thank you for your contribution to Debian. Barry deFreese