From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Mon Jul 11 12:56:00 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Subject: Re: [MiNT] e-mail problems with Mint From: Evan Langlois To: Thomas Binder Cc: mint@fishpool.com In-Reply-To: <20050711084130.GA21901@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de> References: <20050708190246.9tvxvm26eudcw80w@coolrunningconcepts.com> <20050711084130.GA21901@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:54:52 -0500 Message-Id: <1121079293.30982.35.camel@taro.coolrunningconcepts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc14.midphase.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - fishpool.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - CoolRunningConcepts.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: Evan@CoolRunningConcepts.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 10:41 +0200, Thomas Binder wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:02:46PM -0400, evan@coolrunningconcepts.com wrote: > > My Summary: packets don't seem to be leaving the machine > > sometime after it hits the DATA portion of sending mail, or its > > not recieving them. And there is an odd issue during > > retransmits. > > Could that be a path-MTU-discovery problem? Nope - the problem happens well into the transaction. The odd retransmit behavior is evidently a feature of mint - its odd, but after looking at the source, its documented thats it supposed to behave that way. Originally I didn't look at the source, and just the data sumps, which is why I said "odd" restransmits and not "buggy". It sure looked like a bug, but it was possible that it be intentional ... and it was.