Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:58:32 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<OFE60A27DA.9F90A4DB-ON852575A7.005C0202-852575A7.005C33FC@
e1b.org> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 12:47 PM 4/29/2009 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Nathan wrote on 04/28/2009 04:23:09 PM:
>> Just a small point -- I would say that's not a sufficient test,
>> because LISTSERV itself does not listen on port 25. So testing on
>> port 25 is a good thing, but not sufficient in and of itself, since
>> port 25 being responsive is not a guarantee that LISTSERV itself is
>running.
>
>Is this still needed if the monitoring is done from a different computer,
>and Listserve is running under Windows and is the SMTP listener?
LISTSERV (LSV.EXE) is entirely separate from the SMTP listener (SMTPL.EXE), so as I said, verifying that the SMTP port is responding does not guarantee that LISTSERV is running. In point of fact, I can give you a scenario in which SMTPL.EXE would be running but LSV.EXE would not -- if the LAK has expired and LISTSERV can't start. SMTPL doesn't use LAKs so it will continue running regardless of LAK expiration.
Nathan
|
|
|