On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Joshua Kronengold wrote: >Note a couple of different things: > > 1. The qmail message ID (in this case, 14277-mneme=io.com) is > identical. The number in there (14277) is also in the "X-Archive-Number:" header. Isn't that added by ezmlm? I note that at least in some cases, this number, which should be unique per message, was/is being used for multiple different messages. I also note the following: The dups seem to have the following header: Received: from unknown (@10.0.0.205) (or in one case, "Received: from unknown (root at 10.0.0.205)"), while the non-dup messages (or the last duplicate message) says Received: from unknown (dgf at 10.0.0.205) I am not sure why this might be the case, but I find myself wondering if there are more processes running and trying to handle things than there should be, and there is not proper process locking to keep a rogue from stepping on the toes of the "sane" process. Or perhaps it's a permissions issue - the rogue process sends out an e-mail, but can't write to a log saying that it has done so, and therefore thinks it hasn't and tries again? Then the "sane" process (dgf) sends out its e-mail, and properly writes to the log, so both sane and rogue are satisfied that the e-mail has been sent? I don't know enough about qmail/ezmlm to offer an informed opinion, but I've been dealing with weird Unix crap (and weird computer crap in general) for far too long.