🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <878394516snz@siberia.demon.co.uk>, claire
<9711m$cl@siberia.demon.co.uk> writes

>Having spent hours on the phone with the helpdesk, emailing and
>faxing logs and config files and the results of numerous tests
>with byte-level logging enabled, my experience is that Malcolm is
>right in his first assertion that this results from trying to#
>send mail via the punts.
>
>The problem is that it's *very* hard to figure out how this is
>happening, and it does seem to be KA9Q-specific.

I agree - so demon.service dropped from the followups (and, since some
of this has wandered into d.i.developers that added)

>I normally send a lot of mail via post.d.c.u, using an
>appropriately modified .WRK file rather than relying on
>the "sm gateway" setting in KA9Q.

This is probably significant

>Yesterday morning, all this mail started to get the 550 NAUTH
>response encountered by Tim.  With the helpdesk's assistance,
>I tried deleting the domain cache, removing all references to
>smtp gateways from my autoexec.net, and we jointly checked my
>autoexec.net for any errors.  Nothing.

Is it that the first entry in the WRK file is a demon.co.uk address
which would be correctly sent to a punt machine ?  Then later entries
are being rejected because you are "relaying" ??

Perhaps you could create a short example which fails for you so that it
can be duplicated where tools are available for checking...

-- 
richard                       writing to inform and not as company policy
        http://www.happyday.demon.co.uk/ reviews the DTI crypto proposals
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM