REMOVE ME FROM YOUR Email LISTs. This is the only notice you will get before I take legal action.
George G. Fant Omega World Travel CIO 703.359.0200 703.359.4675 Fax > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 3:01 AM > Subject: [IMail_Forum DIGEST] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Problem with spool not removeing GSE files > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:00:41 -0500 > From: "Keith Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C288F3.D8D0B182 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" > > **** MIME Non-Text Attachment Skipped ***** > > > **** MIME Non-Text Attachment Skipped ***** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:59:48 -0500 > From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[6]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I understand your point however, I don't believe that the RFC's > > apply here. I am not "Bouncing" messages, I am responding to them. > > The RFCs do apply, exactly as they would if you were writing an > SMTP-to-proprietary gateway. This doesn't mean your app needs to act > like a full-fledged MTA; it simply means that the information in the > SMTP transaction and data needs to be interpreted per the RFCs (since > it presumably originates from an RFC-compliant MUA). As such, the > message will contain envelope and header information that may differ > for specific reasons. It's my opinion that you should be using the > envelope information for what are essentially non-delivery > notifications (even if you don't consider them bounces). > > Yet I understand your position to the contrary, especially given that > the Program Alias functionality makes it impossible to be so thorough! > And given that most commercial MTAs do not separate the From: and the > MAIL FROM:, it is unlikely that your architecture will be undone by a > non-hacker or -spammer. In fact, trying to look at it from your point > of view, if you're really trying to contact the human accepting new > messages in reply to the e-mail, a Reply-To: may be a better fit than > the From:, should the former exist. > > -Sandy > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
