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: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:00 AM > Subject: [IMail_Forum DIGEST] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "EgyRec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [IMail Forum] Sharing the domain > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:19:33 +0200 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi all, > sorry for this question but is there a way to share the same domain or > divide it to two domains? meaning, i have a reserved domain called abc.com > and i need to use this domain for 2 companies x and y. So i need > to get the > x company accounts like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get the y company accounts > like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it possible? > I need to do it because it will save me reserving a dmoain for > each company > though they don't need to have their own domain and they need to be > associated with part of our domain. > > Any suggestion will be aprreciated. > Thanksin Advance. > Waheed Malek > Advanced Systems > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 05:56:59 -0600 > From: Len Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Imail Version 6.05 Questions > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >1) Got mail to send and receive okay within the domain it is for. > > > >2) I cannot get it to send out to other domains? Such as > domain1, domain1 > >& etc > > > > > > > >Could someone please give me some assistance and what to look for. > > look in the Imail log file, probably in imail install directory, under > imail/spool, named sysMMDD.txt > > Len > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Randy Armbrecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Sharing the domain > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 06:56:30 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > yes, this can easily be done. > > in Imail, just set up 2 your 2 different hosts - > one as "x.abc.com" for the host domain, and the other as > "y.abc.com" as the > host domain > > in DNS, (you may need to defer to the other experts on the list), but we > will always set up a new "sub-domain" under the abc.com entry for > each host > name - x.abc.com and y.abc.com, and include an MX record for each new > "sub-domain" . > > abc.com: > @ A IN xxx.xxx.xxx.xx1 > www A IN xxx.xxx.xxx.xx1 > @ MX 10 mail.abc.com > mail A IN xxx.xxx.xxx.xx2 > > x A IN xxx.xxx.xxx.xx? > MX 10 mail.abc.com > > y A IN xxx.xxx.xxx.xx? > MX 10 mail.abc.com > > > Sincerely, > > Randy Armbrecht > Global Web Solutions�, Inc. > 804-346-5300 x102 > 877-800-GLOBAL (4562) x102 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "EgyRec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:19 AM > Subject: [IMail Forum] Sharing the domain > > > > Hi all, > > sorry for this question but is there a way to share the > same domain or > > divide it to two domains? meaning, i have a reserved domain > called abc.com > > and i need to use this domain for 2 companies x and y. So i need to get > the > > x company accounts like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get the y company accounts > > like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it possible? > > I need to do it because it will save me reserving a dmoain for each > company > > though they don't need to have their own domain and they need to be > > associated with part of our domain. > > > > Any suggestion will be aprreciated. > > Thanksin Advance. > > Waheed Malek > > Advanced Systems > > > > > > > > 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/ > > --- > > [Scanned for viruses by GlobalWeb.net using Declude/F-Prot AV] > > > > > > --- > [Scanned for viruses by GlobalWeb.net using Declude/F-Prot AV] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 06:03:42 -0600 > From: Len Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Sharing the domain > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > sorry for this question but is there a way to share the > same domain or > >divide it to two domains? meaning, i have a reserved domain > called abc.com > >and i need to use this domain for 2 companies x and y. So i need > to get the > >x company accounts like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get the y company accounts > >like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it possible? > > abc.com, x.abc.com and y.abc.com are three separate domains, in > Imail terms > and in DNS terms so if you can get the senders to send to the @recipient > addresses, it will work. > > If the senders send to all recipients as @abc.com and you want to split > that up to abc.com, x.abc.com and y.abc.com, maybe somebody knows > how to do > that with Imail. It's easily achievable with IMGate doing > address re-writing. > > Len > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:38:57 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:28 -0600 > > >>And finally, they said they maintained a 99.5 percent uptime, > but over the > last 9 months we have seen about 12 hours of downtime from them. << > > Which would be 99.81% - so they are more than meeting your expectations. > > Best Regards > Andy Schmidt > > H&M Systems Software, Inc. > 600 East Crescent Avenue > Suite 203 > Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > http://www.hm-software.com/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 09:34:53 -0600 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Try reading all of the posts on this subject Andy, and not just the ones > you want to. I clarified earlier the 12 hours. > > > Jason > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > > > >> From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:28 -0600 > > >>And finally, they said they maintained a 99.5 percent uptime, but over > > >>the > last 9 months we have seen about 12 hours of downtime from them. << > > Which would be 99.81% - so they are more than meeting your expectations. > > Best Regards > Andy Schmidt > > > > > --- > [ This E-mail automatically scanned for viruses by AreaTech - > http://www.areatech.com ] > --- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Dave Koontz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:56:25 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Anybody that provides 99.x% uptime is doing an EXCEPTIONAL job! Show me a > server with 100% uptime, and I will show you a server that hasn't been > updated, maintained or backed-up! In fact it is likely infected > with a virus > or worm of some sort. Critical updates require reboots and > downtime... such > is life. If you think you can do a better job yourself, just try it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > > > >> From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:28 -0600 > > >>And finally, they said they maintained a 99.5 percent uptime, > but over the > last 9 months we have seen about 12 hours of downtime from them. << > > Which would be 99.81% - so they are more than meeting your expectations. > > Best Regards > Andy Schmidt > > H&M Systems Software, Inc. > 600 East Crescent Avenue > Suite 203 > Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > http://www.hm-software.com/ > > > 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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:14:36 -0600 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually, I have worked on systems that DID maintain a 3 9's performance > (99.999). It was achieved using Distributed Directors for the front > end, redundant connections between the backend systems, and was located > in mutiple geographical locations. Any time we would need to update the > system we would just down on of the 3 systems, update it, test it and > bring it into production as the primary. > > > Jason > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Dave Koontz > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > > > Anybody that provides 99.x% uptime is doing an EXCEPTIONAL job! Show me > a server with 100% uptime, and I will show you a server that hasn't been > updated, maintained or backed-up! In fact it is likely infected with a > virus or worm of some sort. Critical updates require reboots and > downtime... such is life. If you think you can do a better job > yourself, just try it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > > > >> From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:28 -0600 > > >>And finally, they said they maintained a 99.5 percent uptime, but over > > >>the > last 9 months we have seen about 12 hours of downtime from them. << > > Which would be 99.81% - so they are more than meeting your expectations. > > Best Regards > Andy Schmidt > > H&M Systems Software, Inc. > 600 East Crescent Avenue > Suite 203 > Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > http://www.hm-software.com/ > > > 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/ > > > 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/ > > > > --- > [ This E-mail automatically scanned for viruses by AreaTech - > http://www.areatech.com ] > --- > > > > > > --- > [ This E-mail automatically scanned for viruses by AreaTech - > http://www.areatech.com ] > --- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:30:23 -0500 > From: "Thomas Juliano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Show me a server with 100% uptime, and I will show you a server that > >hasn't been updated, maintained or backed-up! In fact it is likely > >infected with a virus or worm of some sort. > >Critical updates require reboots and downtime > > Novell use to be one of the best Operating Systems around and you > could update it on the fly, however, I'm not sure about any of the > versions after 4x. We had a server that would run for years with > out a reboot. > > Regards, > Tom > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:37:12 -0500 > From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Is there a way to notify list group members when their postings > > violate an established Imail Rule? > > Yes. Follow this thread and adapt accordingly: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum@;list.ipswitch.com/msg60160.html > > (Especially my post here: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum@;list.ipswitch.com/msg60188.html) > > -Sandy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:35:18 -0500 > From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Sharing the domain > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If the senders send to all recipients as @abc.com and you want to > > split that up to abc.com, x.abc.com and y.abc.com, maybe somebody > > knows how to do that with Imail. > > I do, but that's beyond what Waheed needs. :) > > -Sandy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 15:04:39 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sandy, > > Thank you addressing my question. As it turns out, while I was wait for > someone to reply to my question I solved the problem another way. > > I wrote a VB program designed to bounce the messages the way I want and > associated it with a Program Alias. The Inbound delivery rule I defined > seems to be working fine. When a posting meets the rule's criteria it > is forwarded to the Alias and the program I wrote handles the rest. > > Thanks anyway, > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Sanford > Whiteman > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > Is there a way to notify list group members when their postings > > violate an established Imail Rule? > > Yes. Follow this thread and adapt accordingly: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum@;list.ipswitch.com/msg60160.html > > (Especially my post here: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum@;list.ipswitch.com/msg60188.html) > > -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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 15:14:44 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Now OT] RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thomas Juliano wrote: > > "Novell use to be one of the best Operating Systems around and you > could update it on the fly, however, I'm not sure about any of the > versions after 4x. We had a server that would run for years with > out a reboot." > > I took the liberty of changing the subject line as these comments > and those > from others have veered way off from the intended purpose of the IMail > Forum. > > Whilst it is true that Novell (yes, including post-4.x versions) can be > updated on the fly in many circumstances, in some cases the server must be > bounced. Notice that we are now talking about Network Operating > Systems, not > mail servers and, in particular, a product named IMail Server for > which this > discussion list is provided by its vendor, Ipswitch. > > Nothing personal here; just trying to keep traffic on-topic :) > > Guy > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:37:33 -0500 > From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When a posting meets the rule's criteria it is forwarded to the > > Alias and the program I wrote handles the rest. > > Sounds fine, as long as you take into account that PAs do not have > access to the envelope sender (which is where bounces must be sent). > > -Sandy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Adam Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:38:18 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi. We've been using Postini for about 3 months and have been > quite pleased. > There is not much tweaking to do, and those customers of ours who > have opted > in for the service (about 500 out of 1500 total) have appreciated it. > > Regarding downtime, the only time in my experience that we had > problems was > during an AT&T routing issue which caused a lot of availability issues > around the Internet. During one of Postini's announced maintenance > procedures, we hovered near the DNS server getting ready to change our MX > records to point directly to our mail server in case mail stopped > coming in, > but it turned out to be unnecessary. I think the Postini customer > interface > went down, but mail kept coming through (albeit perhaps unfiltered). > > Postini does have the added advantage that if YOU go down, they will spool > your mail for you until you come back up (I think that is the active EMS > option -- an added charge). That's helped us at least once when the local > CLEC had fiber problems and we lost connectivity to the Internet for 1-2 > hours. > > Adam > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Juliano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 1:30 PM > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Feedback on Postini > > > > >Show me a server with 100% uptime, and I will show you a server that > > >hasn't been updated, maintained or backed-up! In fact it is likely > > >infected with a virus or worm of some sort. > > >Critical updates require reboots and downtime > > > > Novell use to be one of the best Operating Systems around and you > > could update it on the fly, however, I'm not sure about any of the > > versions after 4x. We had a server that would run for years with > > out a reboot. > > > > Regards, > > Tom > > > > 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/ > > --- > > [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by Webjogger's AntiVirus Protection > System] > > > > > > --- > [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by Webjogger's AntiVirus > Protection System] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 15:42:21 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I am not sure I understand what you mean. The message pointed to by the > command line parameter passed by Imail contains everything I need. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Sanford > Whiteman > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > When a posting meets the rule's criteria it is forwarded to the > > Alias and the program I wrote handles the rest. > > Sounds fine, as long as you take into account that PAs do not have > access to the envelope sender (which is where bounces must be sent). > > -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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Jeff Kratka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [IMail Forum] List Server > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:03:59 -0800 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I am starting to use my list server to send mass mailings to my users (for > information only). The one question is if the only addresses they > are being > sent to are on my domain is the domain name required, ie. username only or > is [EMAIL PROTECTED] needed in the file. > > Thanks. > > Jeff > > ***************************************************** > TymeWyse Internet > P.O.Box 84 - 583 N. Main St., Canyonville, OR 97417 > tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ***************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Rick Leske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Problem with spool not removeing GSE files > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:00:55 -0600 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hey what about all the tmpxxx.tmp files that get 'saved' into the > spool dir > too? Every time a user doesn't exist on one of our domains we get auto > generated tmpxxx.tmp files.. 'thousands' per month. If a user > don't exists > our imail server sends a bounce back to the originator explaining as such. > Is there a way to disable this creature feature? or perhaps forward all of > them to the trash can? > > ~Rick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Len Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:25 PM > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Problem with spool not removeing GSE files > > > > > > >Hey I am fed up with the GSE's too. I wish there would be a separate > > >processing policy for them. > > > > Even better, how about a separate machine to keep 95% of that junk from > > even hitting the mailbox server? > > > > Len > > > > > > 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/ > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > Virus Scanned and Filtered by http://www.FamHost.com E-Mail System. > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > Virus Scanned and Filtered by http://www.FamHost.com E-Mail System. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:09:36 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] List Server > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > No real answer here, just an opinion. > > Since you are only ever entering the addresses once, why not just use > the full address. No harm no foul-- and further more you know using the > full address will work. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Kratka > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [IMail Forum] List Server > > > I am starting to use my list server to send mass mailings to my users > (for > information only). The one question is if the only addresses they are > being > sent to are on my domain is the domain name required, ie. username only > or > is [EMAIL PROTECTED] needed in the file. > > Thanks. > > Jeff > > ***************************************************** > TymeWyse Internet > P.O.Box 84 - 583 N. Main St., Canyonville, OR 97417 > tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ***************************************************** > > > 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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:17:49 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] List Server > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I am starting to use my list server to send mass mailings to my > users (for > > information only). The one question is if the only addresses they are > being > > sent to are on my domain is the domain name required, ie. > username only or > > is [EMAIL PROTECTED] needed in the file. > > If the recipients are on the same domain that you are sending > from, username > would suffice. However, for future expansion, consistency, paranoia, and > good practice, I would suggest that you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for all > entries in USER.LST and, optionally, USER.TXT file(s). > > Guy > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:28:47 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jeff, > > How did you manage to get the "MAIL FROM:" and "RCPT TO:" which > are part of > the SMTP envelope? > > Guy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:42 PM > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > I am not sure I understand what you mean. The message pointed to by the > > command line parameter passed by Imail contains everything I need. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:40:23 -0500 > From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I am not sure I understand what you mean. The message pointed to by > > the command line parameter passed by Imail contains everything I > > need. > > No, it does not contain the envelope sender. This may seem like a > minor detail, but per the RFCs, the MAIL FROM: is the appropriate > recipient of non-delivery notifications. You can do it whatever way > you want, but there exists a chance of misrouting (less so than if you > were trying to catch spam, for instance, but still there). > > -Sandy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:35:11 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Problem with spool not removeing GSE files > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rick, > > I have a .CMD file which is scheduled (using "AT") to run at 11:55 p.m. > every day and one part of it is a line that reads: > > DEL X:\IMail\Spool\*.tmp /F /Q > > Guy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Leske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:00 PM > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Problem with spool not removeing GSE files > > > > Hey what about all the tmpxxx.tmp files that get 'saved' into the spool > dir > > too? Every time a user doesn't exist on one of our domains we get auto > > generated tmpxxx.tmp files.. 'thousands' per month. If a user don't > exists > > our imail server sends a bounce back to the originator > explaining as such. > > Is there a way to disable this creature feature? or perhaps > forward all of > > them to the trash can? > > > > ~Rick > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [IMail Forum] OT: and Done. -Server Uptime - Novell > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:40:41 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > "Novell use to be one of the best Operating Systems around and you > > could update it on the fly, however, I'm not sure about any of the > > versions after 4x. We had a server that would run for years with > > out a reboot." > > > > I took the liberty of changing the subject line as these comments > > and those from others have veered way off from the intended purpose > > of the IMail Forum. > > > > Whilst it is true that Novell (yes, including post-4.x versions) can be > > updated on the fly in many circumstances, in some cases the > server must be > > bounced. Notice that we are now talking about Network Operating Systems, > not > > mail servers and, in particular, a product named IMail Server for > > which this discussion list is provided by its vendor, Ipswitch. > > > > Nothing personal here; just trying to keep traffic on-topic :) > > No problem, just figured we needed a break or laugh... > > Whatever, > Tom > Image`fx > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:50:46 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > First of all let's be clear-- I am not bouncing messages. That would > imply that the message is being rejected during the original SMTP > conversation. Messages processed by the inbound rules filter have > already been accepted by [my] SMTP server. So now we are in post > delivery mode. > > Because the filter kept the message from going into the List Group's > mailbox, it (the message) gets disposed of in one of 3 ways; moved to a > local mailbox, forwarded to another address or deleted. I chose to > forward the message to the Program Alias that implements my VB Program. > > In response to your question I get the return address using the from > header in the orginal message. I am essentially sending a new message > to the original sender informing them of the their rules violation. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Guy Isabel > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > Jeff, > > How did you manage to get the "MAIL FROM:" and "RCPT TO:" which are part > of > the SMTP envelope? > > Guy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:42 PM > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > I am not sure I understand what you mean. The message pointed to by > the > > command line parameter passed by Imail contains everything I need. > > > > 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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:00:55 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi Jeff, > > Sorry if my post seemed too blunt. I was assuming that you were attempting > to use the "MAIL FROM:" envelope field as this is what the RFCs > call for (if > you read them until you feel an urgent need to go to bed). :) > Sandy replied > with a much more measured message, downplaying the "need" to get at the > "MAIL FROM:" envelope field and putting it in proper perspective > as regards > what you are doing. > > With apologies, > > Guy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:50 PM > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > First of all let's be clear-- I am not bouncing messages. That would > > imply that the message is being rejected during the original SMTP > > conversation. Messages processed by the inbound rules filter have > > already been accepted by [my] SMTP server. So now we are in post > > delivery mode. > > > > Because the filter kept the message from going into the List Group's > > mailbox, it (the message) gets disposed of in one of 3 ways; moved to a > > local mailbox, forwarded to another address or deleted. I chose to > > forward the message to the Program Alias that implements my VB Program. > > > > In response to your question I get the return address using the from > > header in the orginal message. I am essentially sending a new message > > to the original sender informing them of the their rules violation. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:02:04 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[4]: [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. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Sanford > Whiteman > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > I am not sure I understand what you mean. The message pointed to by > > the command line parameter passed by Imail contains everything I > > need. > > No, it does not contain the envelope sender. This may seem like a > minor detail, but per the RFCs, the MAIL FROM: is the appropriate > recipient of non-delivery notifications. You can do it whatever way > you want, but there exists a chance of misrouting (less so than if you > were trying to catch spam, for instance, but still there). > > -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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 17:13:55 -0500 > From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In response to your question I get the return address using the from > > header in the orginal message. > > This is not the return address. It may suffice for your needs, but is > not a complete implementation of a post-delivery rejection. > > -Sandy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:08:53 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Guy, > > No problem. IT makes me feel good to know that there are people out > there who still read. Let alone know what an RFC is! > > Thanks for your comments, > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@;list.ipswitch.com] On Behalf Of Guy Isabel > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > Hi Jeff, > > Sorry if my post seemed too blunt. I was assuming that you were > attempting > to use the "MAIL FROM:" envelope field as this is what the RFCs call for > (if > you read them until you feel an urgent need to go to bed). :) Sandy > replied > with a much more measured message, downplaying the "need" to get at the > "MAIL FROM:" envelope field and putting it in proper perspective as > regards > what you are doing. > > With apologies, > > Guy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:50 PM > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > First of all let's be clear-- I am not bouncing messages. That would > > imply that the message is being rejected during the original SMTP > > conversation. Messages processed by the inbound rules filter have > > already been accepted by [my] SMTP server. So now we are in post > > delivery mode. > > > > Because the filter kept the message from going into the List Group's > > mailbox, it (the message) gets disposed of in one of 3 ways; moved to > a > > local mailbox, forwarded to another address or deleted. I chose to > > forward the message to the Program Alias that implements my VB > Program. > > > > In response to your question I get the return address using the from > > header in the orginal message. I am essentially sending a new message > > to the original sender informing them of the their rules violation. > > > > 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/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 17:45:51 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re[4]: [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. > > Jeff, > > Regardless of whether you are "bouncing" or "responding" to > messages -- and > I understand the nuance --, you *may* be "responding" to the > wrong sender if > you go by the "From:" field, as Sandy pointed out. Granted, it is not an > Earth-shattering possibility, but I simply wanted to point out a > *possible* > mishap. Also, at the risk of coming across as a Nazi, I believe that RFCs > apply at all times when it comes to any SMTP transaction :) > > All in good spirit, I hope, > > Guy > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:09:22 -0500 > From: Guy Isabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jeff, > > You will eventually receive a couple more postings from me which may look > like I'm beating an issue. I apologize for this in advance. I am usually > subscribed in "digest" mode except on weekends and when I am in "standard" > mode, I am badly lagged. > > I know that this list is notorious for being slow at times (euphemism) and > that this may lead to problems owing to out-of-sync replies. I also have a > theory that Ipswitch may have incorporated a set of rules that act as a > "bozo filter" which results in my postings being delayed, > probably for good > reasons ;) > > Best, > > Guy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 5:08 PM > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Auto-Reply for List Rules Violations > > > > Guy, > > > > No problem. IT makes me feel good to know that there are people out > > there who still read. Let alone know what an RFC is! > > > > Thanks for your comments, > > Jeff > > > 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/
