Tim, thanks now that you mention that I did read that during my research.. thanks I'll pass that along also..
\t 09:32 AM 7/2/2006, Timothy Arnold wrote: >Hi Debbie, > >Don't know if this has already been said, but I believe that the remote >mail server needs to accept null sender (RFC823?) as a valid address. We >shouldn't need to disable sender verification or change the from address >just because the remote mail server doesn't conform to the RFCs. > >The reason for using null sender (correct me if I am wrong) is that this >avoids a loop if they try to perform sender verfication as well. > >Cheers >Tim > > >On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Debbie Doerrlamm wrote: > >> >The external mail server, 209.42.34.104 is refusing the null sender. >> >Simple test: >> > >> >$ telnet mail.idonails.com 25 >> >Trying 209.42.34.104... >> >Connected to static.user104.209.42.34.dsli.com. >> >Escape character is '^]'. >> >220 idonails.com ESMTP MDaemon 6.8.4; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:07:15 -0400 >> >HELO elara >> >250 idonails.com Hello elara, pleased to meet you >> >MAIL FROM: <> Regards, Debbie ^v^ ^o^ //\o/\\ ^o^ ^v^ Webmaster - System Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (AOL, CS or AIM NailGdsss - MSN Nailgodess) WWWeb Services, Ronkonkoma, NY 631-981-1273 fax 631-981-7557 http://www.beautytech.com & http://www.beautytech.INFO for Professionals for Consumers -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
