Re: Weird mailing list bounce

On 02/19/2012 02:11 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> I received this strange bounce when posting to the -general
> mailing list a couple weeks ago. Looks like it made it to
> the mailing list, but the box after that rejected it because
> of a "fail[ed] syntax check". Unfortunately, it gives no
> details as to what that actually means, and if the problem
> is with my headers or the ones majordomo added. Anyone have
> clues or ideas on how to diagnose?

this mail was rejected by one of the (newish) inbound relays for
postgresql.org, the problem with diagnosing this in detail is that the
message is very old. We don't actually have logs going back 10
generations and you sent in the complaint like a day too late :(
However if the forwarded bounce is unedited it looks extremely strange
with all the interleaved header(and mime declaration)-stuff on the CC
and the second Cc line (note the difference casing).
I would strongly suspect something tinkered with those headers but we
don't have enough data to diagnose this fully though :(

Stefan

>
> ==Begin forwarded message==
>
> From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon(at)zql(dot)com>
> To: greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
> Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
> Date: 8:28 PM on Wednesday, February 08, 2012
> X-Failed-Recipients: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
> pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
> host makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]: 550 Message headers fail syntax check
>
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
>
> Return-path: <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
> Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost)
> by zql.com with smtp (Exim 4.68)
> (envelope-from <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>)
> id 1RvIoG-0000nu-GY; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:28:28 -0500
> From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-PG-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general> List-Help: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=help> List-ID: <pgsql-general.postgresql.org> List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org> List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=sub%20pgsql-general>Aleksey Tsalolikhin <atsaloli(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com>
> CC: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-PG-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general> List-Help: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=help> List-ID: <pgsql-general.postgresql.org> List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org> List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=sub%20pgsql-general>Aleksey Tsalolikhin <atsaloli(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com>
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] phantom long-running query (check_postgres.pl reports a long-running query, but the database logs don`t show it)
> X-PGP-Key: 2529 DF6A B8F7 9407 E944 45B4 BC9B 9067 1496 4AC8
> X-Request-PGP: http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
> In-Reply-To: <CA+jMWocErE4Ek3qpY-DGwiSKqckPZtZhv4iAYX5tGX1tfeRXxA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:28:28 -0000
> X-Mailer: JoyMail 2.4.0
> Message-ID: <42ce54325a082b7437d6d7241c8ab4a3(at)biglumber(dot)com>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> ...
>> POSTGRES_QUERY_TIME WARNING: (host:xxx) longest query: 264s
>> (database:xxx PID:xxx port:xxx address:xxx username:xxx)
> ...
>> postgres log showed other long-running queries, but nothing over 48s.
>
>> It's really interesting why the database server log does not show this query.
>
> It's not in the logs because it hasn't stopped running yet. Once
> it finishes, it will appear in the logs. You need to query
> pg_stat_database to see what query it is.
>
> Remember that check_postgres looks at things happening right now,
> it is not a historical tool.
>