Still don't see why that would have any effect, but if you believe it does I won't argue the point.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Haaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:44 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IMC Queues > > > Most likely because it is a Pentium Pro 200 with 256 MB RAM > hosting 60 mailboxes, IMC and Trend Interscan and Scanmail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:11 AM > Subject: RE: IMC Queues > > > > I don't have any idea why that would be the case. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Chris Scharff - MCSE, Exchange MVP 512.652.4500 x244 > > Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Haaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:49 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > Mostly because It slows the hell out of all my incoming/outgoing > > > external mail . . . and I dont particularly like the idea of > > > someone flooding my boxes with bogus mail . . . > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 6:57 PM > > > Subject: RE: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want to stop NDRs, read and delivery receipts > > > from being > > > > delivered to senders? If the sender is bogus the messages are > > > > eventually dropped. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Chris Scharff - MCSE, Exchange MVP 512.652.4500 x244 > Senior Sales > > > > Engineer MessageOne > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Chris Haaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:34 AM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: Re: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After finally finding the answer (I think) at Trend's > site . . . > > > > > > > > > > Note that this unknown recipient problem does not > occur for SMTP > > > > > servers like Exchange Internet Mail Service. When > > > InterScan tries to > > > > > deliver to an unknown recipient to Exchange > IMicrosoft, Exchange > > > > > does not reject the message outright, like what Sendmail > > > does. Only > > > > > when the message has been accepted does Exchange find out the > > > > > recipient is bogus, and then sends the bounced mail to > > > InterScan as > > > > > an outbound mail. So, this mail follows the normal outbound > > > > > path. > > > > > > > > > > my next question would be is there anything I can do to > > > stop this? I > > > > > have been going into the IMS queue every couple of hours and > > > > > deleting the emails > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Durkee, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:10 PM > > > > > Subject: RE: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is that some spammer, pretending to send > > > from a spoofed > > > > > > yahoo > > > > > address, sent spam to four bad or former addresses in > > > your domain. > > > > > The messages you see are the resulting NDRs trying to go > > > back to the > > > > > forged and non-existant yahoo address. Feel free to > delete them, > > > > > they aren't going anywhere anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Chris Haaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 13:55 > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: Re: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps I am dim but I can only find 1 entry with no > > > > > replies for IMS > > > > > > or > > > > > IMC > > > > > > queue has <> in Originator Field. > > > > > > Any other ideas? > > > > > > The weird thing is there is something like 6 entries for > > > > > each outgoing > > > > > > address > > > > > > > > > > > > co.boing.com <> > > > > > > co.boing.com <> > > > > > > co.boing.com <> > > > > > > co.boing.com <> > > > > > > yahoo.com <> > > > > > > yahoo.com <> > > > > > > yahoo.com <> > > > > > > yahoo.com <> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. all with the same exact timestamp . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:53 PM > > > > > > Subject: RE: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Burrow your way to the FAQ. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Chris Haaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:45 PM > > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > > Subject: IMC Queues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking in the IMC Queue for Outbound Mail awaiting > > > > > delivery I see > > > > > > > 10-20 enteries to the same address all with <> as the > > > > > originator . . > > > > > > > . Has the worm struck you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "It is the province of knowledge to speak, > > > > > > > and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen". > > > > > > > Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-94); U.S. writer, > > > > > > > physician. > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
