Discussion direction 1. Not without unwanted side effects. Discussion direction 2. I time-out messages quicker than three days, because the attorneys are impatient. Imagine that. But then you don't have to look at them for as long. I can ignore them as long as I want, without blinking even. Discussion direction 3. Okay, so you can make a bear dance too, but would you want to? (pilfered from FAQ) Discussion direction 4. Implement various anti-spam measures that will also kill valid business-related messages.
The other different directions this discussion can go in are beyond the scope of my laziness. Also, my coffee cup is empty. -----Original Message----- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:03 PM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: IMC originator <> Subject: RE: IMC originator <> Is there any way to have exchange 5.5 treat those NDR messages to bad spammer email addresses differently than real emails? I delete them when I see them in the queue, but It would be nice if you could make exchange give up real easily (quickly) when trying to send an NDR to a bad address. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IMC originator <> The RFC isn't real clear on this. We've gone round on this before and it seems that server can optionally deny the message up-front or accept it and than NDR it back to the sender. Exchange does the latter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Siegel, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:55 PM Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > Ok, but they should not be sending ndr's in response to notification > messages is my point. If relaying disabled, messages that are > 'spoofed' should not generate an NDR in my opinion. I mean, why should > it send and fail send and fail to hosts that don't exist just to say, > 'invalid host' or > relaying prohibited or am I missing something? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:41 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > > > They will still appear for standard, valid NDR's as well. > > William > > -----Original Message----- > From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IMC originator <> > > > So I should ignore those if they are not causing any other problem? I > have followed all the suggested reccomendations regarding relaying. > > Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:41 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IMC originator <> > > > That is your server NDRing the attempted relays back to the spammers. Since > spammers tend to use bogus addresses those messages will likely > timeout after three days as undeliverable. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Siegel, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:18 PM > Subject: IMC originator <> > > > > I believe I have closed my mail server: smtp.actv.com from relaying, > however > > whenever I go into the IMS queues, I am still seeing messages with > > originator <> with destination another host. What is up with this, > > am I missing something? > > > > Rich > > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
