It IS the same issue.  I made the suggested change (i.e., adding nocanonify)
and at the same time increased the number of Listserv mail queue
processors - that significantly improved the situation but did not
eliminate it.  It has now become sufficiently annoying that I wanted to
tackle it again.  Now that I know it is a Sendmail problem rather than a
Listserv issue, I will tackle it from that angle.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:50:21 -0700, Ben Parker <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:32:55 -0500, Gary Bannister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I would like to know how Listserv normally handles a posting to a domain
>>that appears to no longer exist (i.e., the MX records for the domain can
>>not be determined). With my current setup (1.8d under BSD/OS 4.2), when a
>>posting is sent it is broken into envelopes of 100 addresses.  If one of
>>the addresses contains a domain for which the MX records can not be
>>located, the message "Can not check MX records for recipient host
<DOMAIN>"
>>appears in the logfile and the posting will sit in the spool directory
>>until the domain becomes reachable.
>
>Isn't this the same issue you raised last Sept and was answered by Valdis
>in msg:
>http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0109&L=lstsrv-
l&F=&S=&P=8161
>
>The short answer is that LISTSERV never delivers to end recipients by
itself.
>It always hands this off to an MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) such as sendmail.
>Normally LISTSERV composes BSMTP 'packages' (in your case of 100
recipients)
>and mails that 'package' to sendmail.  LISTSERV has a very simple SMTP
process
>doing this that expects that the MTA will accept the entire 'package'
without
>question.  Then when the MTA is attempting to deliver the actual mail, if
it
>finds a bad address, it is the job of the MTA to prepare an error reprot
>message and deliver that back to LISTSERV.  In short, the MTA must not
attempt
>DNS lookup verification on the domains at the time it accepts the mail from
>LISTSERV.  Valdis gave you some configuration recommendations for sendmail
>that you reported did the work.  Is that no longer the case?