It's been MUCH better . SurveyMonkey emails are detecting the MX and A correctly. However, I found one from today that's a problem from @ columbia.edu. Is the UTF formatting of the sender >name< messing this up? Thanks
X-Assp-Message-Score: 8 (MX missing: columbia.edu (From ,Reply-To)) X-Assp-IP-Score: 8 (MX missing: columbia.edu (From ,Reply-To)) X-Assp-Message-Score: 15 (A record missing for MX: columbia.edu (From , Reply-To)) X-Assp-IP-Score: 15 (A record missing for MX: columbia.edu (From, Reply-To)) From: =?utf-8?Q?SIPA=20Events?= <sipaeve...@columbia.edu> Reply-To: =?utf-8?Q?SIPA=20Events?= <sipaeve...@columbia.edu> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:14 AM Thomas Eckardt <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com> wrote: > OK - I think I got it. > > Build 20037 will fix the problem. > > Thomas > > > > > > Von: "K Post" <nntp.p...@gmail.com> > An: "ASSP development mailing list" < > assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > Datum: 06.02.2020 02:31 > Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Missing MX, A, and FROM for specific > sender. Unicode problem? > ------------------------------ > > > > Thanks Thomas, > > Here's a sample output from the maillog that I found. This is before I > whitelisted the DKIM sig. Sometimes they sent through SparkPost, > sometimes Amazon AWS. > Missing FROM, even though it's listed > Malformed reply to because it's quoted printable > > Here's one through SparkPost > Mail log: > Jan-14-20 11:11:44 34543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > *malformed > address: found in - Reply-To:=?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2Ecom?=* > Jan-14-20 11:11:44 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Message-Score: *added 50 (nofromValencePB) for From-missing, total score > for this message is now 50* > Jan-14-20 11:11:44 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > DKIM-Signature found > Jan-14-20 11:11:48 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > info: found DKIM signature identity '@*t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>' > Jan-14-20 11:11:48 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [scoring] DKIM signature verified-OK - header-passed - identity is: @ > *t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/> - > sender policy is: neutral - author policy is: neutral > Jan-14-20 11:11:52 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > whiteHost Regex: whiteSenderBaseRE '*surveymonkey.com* > <http://surveymonkey.com/>' > Jan-14-20 11:11:52 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Message-Score: added -35 for White Host '*surveymonkey.com* > <http://surveymonkey.com/>', total score for this message is now 15 > Jan-14-20 11:11:52 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [scoring] SenderBase -- White Host '*surveymonkey.com* > <http://surveymonkey.com/>' > Jan-14-20 11:11:52 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Message-Score: added 10 for DNSBL: neutral, 52.40.63.21 listed in > *dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net* <http://dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net/>, total score > for this message is now 25 > Jan-14-20 11:11:52 msg33543-22560 [DNSBL] 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [scoring] DNSBL: neutral, 52.40.63.21 listed in (*dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net* > <http://dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net/><-127.0.0.2) > Jan-14-20 11:11:52 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > checking MX/A for *t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/> > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > *t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/> - MX ' > *surveymonkey.mx.e.sparkpost.com* > <http://surveymonkey.mx.e.sparkpost.com/>' - got IP (52.25.164.16) > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 [MissingMX] 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [[scoring]] *MX missing: =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= > (Reply-To)* > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Message-Score: added 8 (mxValencePB) for *MX missing: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To),* total score for > this message is now 33 > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 [MissingMXA] 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [[scoring]] *A record missing for MX: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To)* > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > deleting spamming safelisted tuplet: (52.40.63.0, > *t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>) age: > 10s > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Message-Score: added 15 (mxaValencePB) for *A record missing for MX: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To),* total score for > this message is now 48 > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org *MX > found: **t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>* (Mail From: , From) -> * > *surveymonkey.mx.e.sparkpost.com* > <http://surveymonkey.mx.e.sparkpost.com/> > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org *A > record found for MX: **t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>* (Mail From: , From) -> > 52.25.164.16* > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > HMM-Check has given less than 6 results - using monitoring mode only > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Bayesian Check [scoring] - Prob: 0.00000 - Confidence: 0.00000 => > doubtful.ham - answer/query relation: 57% of 28 > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 [MessageLimit][lowlimit] 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [spam found] and possibly passing because messagescore(48) low [Your first > survey response] -> > messages/discarded/Your_first_survey_response--3831526.txt > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > spam found and passing [Your first survey response] -> > messages/discarded/Your_first_survey_response--3831526.txt > Jan-14-20 11:11:53 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > [Plugin] calling plugin ASSP_AFC > Jan-14-20 11:12:00 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > info: PB-IP-Score for '52.40.63.0' is 49, added 49 in this session > Jan-14-20 11:12:00 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > finished message - received DATA size: 37.68 kByte - sent DATA size: 39.68 > kByte > Jan-14-20 11:12:00 msg33543-22560 52.40.63.21 < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> to: ouru...@ourcharity.org > disconnected: session:4D4A64D8 52.40.63.21 - processing time 18 seconds > > And the headers from this one: > X-ASSP-Message-Score: *50 (From-missing)* > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 50 (From-missing) > X-ASSP-DKIMidentity: @*t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/> > X-Original-Authentication-Results: OurCharity.org; dkim=pass; spf=pass > X-ASSP-Re-whiteSenderBaseRE: *surveymonkey.com* <http://surveymonkey.com/> > X-ASSP-Message-Score: -35 (White Host '*surveymonkey.com* > <http://surveymonkey.com/>') > X-ASSP-IP-Score: -34 (White Host '*surveymonkey.com* > <http://surveymonkey.com/>') > X-ASSP-Message-Score: 10 (DNSBL: neutral, 52.40.63.21 listed in > *dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net* <http://dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net/>) > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 10 (DNSBL: neutral, 52.40.63.21 listed in > *dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net* <http://dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net/>) > X-ASSP-DNSBL: neutral, 52.40.63.21 listed in (*dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net* > <http://dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net/><-127.0.0.2) > X-ASSP-Message-Score: 8 (MX missing: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 8 (MX missing: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-Message-Score: 15 (A record missing for MX: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 15 (A record missing for MX: > =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-Detected-URI: *surveymonkey.com* <http://surveymonkey.com/>(6), > *t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>(1) > X-ASSP-Tag: MessageLimit > X-ASSP-Spam-Reason: MessageScore passed low limit > X-ASSP-Message-Totalscore: 48 > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;d= > *t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>; > s=scph; t=1579032308;i=@*t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <http://t.outbound.surveymonkey.com/>; > > * Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; > charset="utf-8"* > Authentication-Results: aa.mta2vsmtp.cc.prd.sparkpost smtp.user=<hidden>; > auth=pass (PLAIN) > Received: from [64.191.16.134] ([*64.191.16.134:47402* > <http://64.191.16.134:47402/>] > helo=n9emlsvc110mgp1.n9.jungle.tech-event_subscriber_process) > by aa.mta2vsmtp.cc.prd.sparkpost (envelope-from < > *survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <survey-nore...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>>) > (ecelerity 4.3.1.69416 r(Core:4.3.1.4)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES-256-GCM) > id 17/C3-02945-4FE1E1E5; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:05:08 +0000 > Message-ID: <17.c3.02945.4fe1e...@aa.mta2vsmtp.cc.prd.sparkpost> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > * From: SurveyMonkey <**surveymon...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <surveymon...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>*>* > To: ouru...@ourcharity.org > Subject: =?utf-8?q?Your_first_survey_response!?= > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:05:08 +0000 > * Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?newsletter=40surveymonkey=2Ecom?=* > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:53 AM Thomas Eckardt < > *thomas.ecka...@thockar.com* <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com>> wrote: > >FROM isn't being detected > > From where you got this information? The real reason is only shown in the > maillog.txt. > > I'm just trying to fix the issue for MX/A. > > Thomas > > > > > > > > Von: "K Post" <*nntp.p...@gmail.com* <nntp.p...@gmail.com>> > An: "ASSP development mailing list" < > *assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net>> > Datum: 03.02.2020 21:53 > Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Missing MX, A, and FROM for specific > sender. Unicode problem? > ------------------------------ > > > > I was able to get a hold of SurveyMonkey. I gave them examples of their > quoted printable reply-to and to my surprise, they replied, and quickly! > Here's the reply: > > My team let me know that we use UTF-8 encoding for our headers and that > this can be fixed within the setup for your Exchange server. They also > confirmed that we've used UTF-8 to encode our headers for awhile now so > this isn't a new formatting on our end. > > I'm not sure what to reply with. Thomas, are you saying that Reply-To: > =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2Ecom?= is not UTF-8 encoded correctly? > I don't understand what is invalid with what Surveymonkey is doing here. I > feel like I have the ear of the team there who can fix this, but I need to > tell them clearly what they are doing wrong. > > You wrote previously "This is no unicode (or better ASCII in UTF-8 - > which is the same). This is a quoted printable encoded email address, which > is (and should not) interpreted as such one." but what specifically isn't > allowed? It's a quoted printable email address which IS interpreted by > ASSP as an address, but it should not be interpreted by ASSP as an email > address? It seems to me that ASSP isn't interpreting this as an email > address, but it should be. > > They're pointing the finger at you, you're saying it's them. I believe > YOU are correct, but I don't know what to tell them next... > > Thanks for the help. > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:53 PM K Post <*nntp.p...@gmail.com* > <nntp.p...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Also, looking at my first post on this thread, FROM isn't being detected > according to the message but the FROM line is in the header without funky > formatting. Can you tell from the header I included why FROM is > considered to be missing? > > The last one scored poorly because of a missing from, missing MX, and > missing a record, *but it actually had all of those things :* > > X-ASSP-Message-Score: 50 (*From-missing*) > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 50 (From-missing) > X-ASSP-Message-Score: 8 (MX missing: > =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= > (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 8 (*MX missing: > =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2ecom?=* > (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-Message-Score: 15 (A record missing for MX: > =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= > (Reply-To)) > X-ASSP-IP-Score: 15 (A record missing for MX: > =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= > (Reply-To)) > > interesting lines in the header: > From: SurveyMonkey <*surveymon...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com* > <surveymon...@t.outbound.surveymonkey.com>> > Subject: =?utf-8?q?New_login_alert?= > Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2Ecom?= > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:44 PM K Post <*nntp.p...@gmail.com* > <nntp.p...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Okay. Is there an alternative so I can set it as we find these messages > to specifically ignore these sender errors while still checking the > overwhelming majority of messages that properly format their headers? Do I > need to no-processing the entire message based on the IP or something? Is > there a better way? > Thanks > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 1:40 AM Thomas Eckardt < > *thomas.ecka...@thockar.com* <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com>> wrote: > >I believe =?utf-8?q?no-reply=40surveymonkey=2ecom?= is unicode for < > *no-re...@surveymonkey.com* <no-re...@surveymonkey.com>> or is that bad > unicode? > > This is no unicode (or better ASCII in UTF-8 - which is the same). This is > a quoted printable encoded email address, which is (and should not) > interpreted as such one. > > ASSP does not allow (and removes any such EHLO-answer offer) 8-bit MIME > headers. > > ... > > Also note that messages in this format require the use of the > SMTPUTF8 extension [*RFC6531* <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6531>] to > be transferred via SMTP. > > > > ... > > Thomas > > > > Von: "K Post" <*nntp.p...@gmail.com* <nntp.p...@gmail.com>> > An: "ASSP development mailing list" < > *assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net>> > Datum: 02.02.2020 18:49 > Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Missing MX, A, and FROM for specific > sender. Unicode problem? > ------------------------------ > > > > You're correct in that RFC1342, a proposed standard (from 1992!!) does > say: > ...an encoded-word MUST NOT appear in any portion of an "address". > > However, RFC6532 *https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6532* > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6532>, also just a *proposed *standard > but from 2012, 20 years newer than 1342, and one that seems to have a lot > of senders providers relying on it says: > This document specifies an enhancement to the Internet Message Format > and to MIME that *allows use of Unicode in mail addresses* and most > header field content. > > So which proposed standard do you adhere to? It seems like if there's a > more lenient one, or more feature full one, that's much newer and that > people are using, that we should at least give that some real > consideration. > > If there's enough senders putting addresses in unicode format, and ASSP > obviously already knows how to decode them, is there any downside to having > ASSP allow unicode in addresses and decode it? I've not seem spammers > doing this, and even if they did try to obscure addresses in unicode, ASSP > will still do its thing and check the discovered addresses the same way it > would if they had not. > > I really don't know why senders are doing this, but they are, and it's > mail we need to get through. The big one for us is SurveyMonkey, something > that our staff relies heavily on, but there are others too. > > What do you think Thomas? If I'm being logical, is there any hope of > getting this changed/enhanced? > > Thanks > > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:09 AM Thomas Eckardt < > *thomas.ecka...@thockar.com* <thomas.ecka...@thockar.com>> wrote: > an email header field may contain encoded unicode - in commends > how ever, if an email header field is used - it has to contain a valid > email address - unicode is not allowed to be used in email addresses > > valid examples: > > reply-to: "any encoded unicode" < valid@email.address> > reply-to: < valid@email.address> > > invalid example: > > reply-to: "any encoded unicode" > > Thomas > > > > > Von: "K Post" <*nntp.p...@gmail.com* <nntp.p...@gmail.com>> > An: "ASSP development mailing list" < > *assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net>> > Datum: 31.01.2020 17:30 > Betreff: Re: [Assp-test] Missing MX, A, and FROM for specific > sender. Unicode problem? > ------------------------------ > > > > I knew that unicode it was common in the subject, but not from/reply-to. > Apparently it's legal in for all headers. > *https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1342* > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1342> And according to the ever > questionable wikipedia, *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_and_email* > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_and_email> : > > - *RFC 2047* <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047> provides support > for encoding non-ASCII values such as real names and subject lines in email > header*[5]* > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_and_email#cite_note-5> > - *RFC 6532* <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6532> allows the use of > UTF-8 in a mail header section *[7]* > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_and_email#cite_note-7> > > > My gut says that FROM/Reply-To (I don't know about the envelope itself) > would need to be checked to see if they're unicode and converted prior to > having the email address extracted from those lines and run through checks > like MX and A, etc. > > What do we all think? I don't know if ASSP is already handling unicode in > FROM and Reply-To and something's wrong with the formatting in my sample > header above, or if ASSP doesn't accept UTF-8 encoded FROM/Reply-To. If > it's the later, do you think we should ask Thomas to look into it? > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:51 AM Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data > Corp. <*bcoff...@infofromdata.com* <bcoff...@infofromdata.com>> wrote: > Ken, > > I can confirm I am seeing this also. > > I haven't had any complaints (I vaguely recollect way way back in ASSP > time I might have had an issue with Survey Monkey) so I have taken no > action on it. > > - Bob > > On 1/31/2020 10:26 AM, K Post wrote: > > Interesting idea Doug. Do any of your users happen to get any > > SurveyMonkey notifications? These are sent to the owners of surveys. > > I'm curious if you're seeing the same malformed info in the headers. > > Thanks > > ken > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:56 PM Doug Lytle <*supp...@drdos.info* > <supp...@drdos.info> > > <mailto:*supp...@drdos.info* <supp...@drdos.info>>> wrote: > > > > This is not a necessarily resolution, but possibly a workaround for > you. > > > > In a past life, I've had some mail servers that just caused more > > issues then they were worth, so I ended up identifying their mail > > server(S) range of IP Addresses and placed those in an alias on the > > firewall and did a NAT directly to the mail server instead of ASSP > > If they were destined for port 25. > > > > Doug > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Assp-test mailing list > > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > <mailto:*Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* > <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net>> > > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Assp-test mailing list > > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > ******************************************************* > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the > individual to whom it is addressed. > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > known virus in this email! > ******************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > ******************************************************* > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the > individual to whom it is addressed. > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > known virus in this email! > ******************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > ******************************************************* > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the > individual to whom it is addressed. > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > known virus in this email! > ******************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > *Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net* <Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net> > *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test* > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test> > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > ******************************************************* > This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential, legally > privileged and protected in law and are intended solely for the use of the > individual to whom it is addressed. > This email was multiple times scanned for viruses. There should be no > known virus in this email! > ******************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > Assp-test mailing list > Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test >
_______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list Assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
