Hello Deon,

 DG> M 20:04:46  packFile /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c03.fr0 created for
 DG> [21:3/104 via 21:3/104] 7 20:04:46  Packing for 21:3/104 Ioram Sette,
 DG> d0de9c05.pkt > ce84ee01.th0 6 20:04:46  cmd: arj a -+ -e -y
 DG> /fido/mailer/out.015/ce84ee01.th0 /fido/mailer/out.tmp/d0de9c05.pkt

I suspect hpt was planning to create d0de9c03.fr0 for 21:3/104 but found an
existing mail bundle to add mail to.

 DG> M 20:04:46  packFile /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c03.fr0 created for
 DG> [21:3/102 via 21:3/102] 7 20:04:46  Leave non-packed mail for 21:3/102
 DG> Oliver Thuns, d0de9c04.pkt

I suspect hpt was also planning to create d0de9c03.fr0 for 21:3/102 but found
mail was not to be packed for that node.

 DG> M 20:04:46  packFile /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c03.fr0 created for
 DG> [21:4/100 via 21:4/100] 7 20:04:46  Packing for 21:4/100 Hub,
 DG> d0de9c02.pkt > d0de9c03.fr0 6 20:04:46  cmd: zip -9 -j -q
 DG> /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c03.fr0 /fido/mailer/out.tmp/d0de9c02.pkt

It looks like d0de9c03.fr0 was finaly used for mail to 21:4/100.

 DG> M 20:04:46  packFile /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c04.fr0 created for
 DG> [21:3/105 via 21:3/105] 7 20:04:46  Packing for 21:3/105 Les Wade,
 DG> d0de9c07.pkt > d0669506.fr0 6 20:04:46  cmd: zip -9 -j -q
 DG> /fido/mailer/out.015/d0669506.fr0 /fido/mailer/out.tmp/d0de9c07.pkt

 DG> M 20:04:46  packFile /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c04.fr0 created for
 DG> [21:2/116 via 21:2/116] 7 20:04:46  Packing for 21:2/116 Alterant,
 DG> d0de9c03.pkt > d0de9c04.fr0 6 20:04:46  cmd: zip -9 -j -q
 DG> /fido/mailer/out.015/d0de9c04.fr0 /fido/mailer/out.tmp/d0de9c03.pkt

It appears these 2 nodes both got mail added to d0de9c04.fr0?

If that happened it seems to me one of those nodes would have received that
bundle with both of those .pkt's and the other simply didn't get them at all.

An investigation is in order here. If that logging is correct that looks like a
problem.

 DG> Notice that the packet d0de9c03.fr0 is created for multiple
 DG> destinations in the same invocation of toss. Is this right?

d0de9c03.fr0 went OK I think.. but d0de9c04.fr0 looks like a problem.

 Ttyl :-),
         Al

--- GoldED+/LNX