Hi Len: I apologize if I misguided you.
By that question I kind of meant that people do not read and don't do as they are supposed to do. We state for questions or comments please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] And do not respond to this email since this is a mailbox not frequently checked. Although it is checked constantly. When I stated that we ask Confirmation@ to be whitelisted.. I also meant that the clients we have receive a copy of the receipt from that email address. Since that email (confirmation@) is only used for receipts that they want to get they may want to WhiteList it so it won't get blocked. Again this is the organization that is notified they are getting a donation or that someone has paid them. It is a real-time notification to them. Of course they can always get a copy of that receipt in the management system but that is besides the point. The challenge response systems work based on having an email sent to the server in response to a confirmation email. Our confirmation email is sent automatically. Since we should not (?) get any email in that account an idea that is being discussed for combating this problem is setting up IMail to send a response (automatically) if anyone sends email to that address. That response can be: *******Auto Reply *********** ========= Thank you for contacting ClickandPledge.com, please send your questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ========= Original message goes here *************************** Now if we can set it so IMail sends the AutoReply as a reply to the original email with the above text on top this will solve two problems: 1: The person trying to contact us will get a faster response if they contact Support 2: If it is a challenge response the issue is resolved since the original email follows the above line. Again .. I have no idea how we can solve this without writing a separate program to intercept that account's email. I am asking for ideas and if this can be done with the current IMail design. Of course one idea would be to setup a bounce message using Declude JM. Regards, Kami -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Automatic Reply- confirmation >What made you think that Kami doesn't accept <> senders? What made you think I think that? >He's referring to the inane challenge/response "confirmation" version >of sender address verification and the havoc it wreaks on automated >systems. He's not referring to envelope-only verification. but his "are not supposed (?) to send any emails to it" could have indicated that the sender address doesn't accept bounces either (as well as not being able to participate in challenge/response sessions) which gives him problems with IMGate/posfix-type sender_address_verification >Knowing this you know what you know, I know what I know, stop pretending that you know what I know. >, I expect you'll understand that Kami should not be attacked I can answer any email in this forum in any style I please. >but defended for having to deal with (as so many have) the flaws of >such a system. If Kami confirm his sender address, refuses bounces, the basic flaw IS with his system. Len _____________________________________________________________________ http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training: Denver; New York; Seattle IMGate.MEIway.com: anti-spam gateway, effective on 1000's of sites, free 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/
