It depends what "bad spammer email address" means. If the part of the address to the right of the @ sign truly does not exist in DNS (e.g., zjeorheorejreohre.net), then it should get thrown away very quickly as soon as the queue is processed. However, if the part to the right side of the @ sign exists, and points to a server that is really up (e.g., hotmail.com) but the left side is bogus, then the message will hang around until it connects up and either gets an error during the SMTP protocol or is accepted and deleted later.
There is no way for Exchange to know that this NDR is destined to a "bad spammer email address", while another NDR is destined for your grandmother who mistyped your email address. -----Original Message----- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
