This is what I have in the mail header. He send it Oct 31st but we received November 3rd. Thanks for your help -Sundaram content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Upgrade Requirements Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:22:35 -0500 Message-ID: <F39DC9ED31373244ACA87544CF8E746E019BE3D7@ACCLUST01EVS1.ugd.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Upgrade Requirements Thread-Index: AcKBIdduSxf/BqVbTYioGqTNVZYVxgACbTzw From: "Roy, Partha, CSCIO" <partharoy@att.com> To: "Balkee Balakrishnan" <balkee@percipia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.percipia.com id gA3Gvk4O028334 X-UIDL: /'c"!WYh!!@VJ!!DK1!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antony Stone" <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> To: <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:22 AM Subject: Re: Is this firewall issue > On Tuesday 05 November 2002 1:45 pm, Sundaram Ramasamy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have NATed mail server in my office, sometime users are getting six, > > seven days old mail, some mails they getting towice, is this because of > > firewall or some other issue?. > > This is very unlikely to be a firewall problem. > > What do the headers of the emails say ? Where is the excessive delay > occurring ? > > Antony. > > -- > > It is also possible that putting the birds in a laboratory setting > inadvertently renders them relatively incompetent. > > - Daniel C Dennett >
