From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id lpW6KQ3jzWDrZQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 08:29:01 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 98BEC1F163; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 08:29:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8794A1E939 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 08:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2D53833035 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:28:59 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2F2D53833035 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1624105739; bh=Ta7/un0W5pvyvefB1nzJa+/q3cNAqj0RxWLNzt5/53s=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=hW+8QG93fshPJRn7d4JqWPecJelTBkTdcF9MexSiAvaFiM8YFpb7pAA1zRB/4XeRk cr3fTPqz6/RdcJjfA1hyELYbXNmnhJDYivt1USa4AeptOSoP5X77Egn7kxbEWBLX6q j/mlZlisJGSMuRkGIy3WYnUQ9KPR1kITybwUxyyc= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6E54385782B for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:28:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B6E54385782B Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35298) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lua5T-00067R-GM; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 08:28:35 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1894 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lua5S-0004m7-7V; Sat, 19 Jun 2021 08:28:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 15:28:42 +0300 Message-Id: <83mtrmvy11.fsf@gnu.org> To: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <87im2eg973.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (message from Florian Weimer on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 22:32:48 +0200) Subject: Re: Problems with email delivery from sourceware? References: <83czsn3y5h.fsf@gnu.org> <871r93w0jg.fsf@igel.home> <838s3b3w9h.fsf@gnu.org> <20210615171410.kv7wzwxuj7uhw3cc@gwenhwyvar> <83zgvr2fl2.fsf@gnu.org> <87im2eg973.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: lsix@lancelotsix.com, schwab@linux-m68k.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Florian Weimer > Cc: Lancelot SIX , Eli Zaretskii , > schwab@linux-m68k.org > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 22:32:48 +0200 > > * Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches: > > > But if I was the only one who experienced these strange delays, then I > > don't want to waste bandwidth on these issues anymore. Thanks for > > taking the time to look at the message I sent as an example. > > I encountered similar delays just before VERP was enabled for > sourceware.org. Apparently it was not possible to figure out the cause > of the mail delays based on the available Postfix logs. As I result, I > don't know if it was Red Hat's email infrastructure or sourceware that > caused the delay. Like in your case, the Received: lines only showed > that the hand-off between the two domains did not happen in a timely > fashion. Thanks. FYI: I asked the gnu.org sysadmins, and they replied that something went wrong with sourceware.org's mail server, which caused the email from there to trigger the fail2ban rule on gnu.org mail servers. The solution was to unban and whitelist sourceware.org. So yes, both sourceware.org and gnu.org mail delivery were parts of the puzzle here.