I am not asking for a referral to some other email service provider.
>
Perhaps you should be. The problem is your service provider is using an
arcane methodology and, as most service providers are supplying gigabytes
for free as part of their service, perhaps it's time you reconsidered your
mail system design. At the very least, a stern discussion with them to see
if they can prevent their self-caused outages.
> I am trying to understand what the options are for sender verify and why
> people use them.
>
As explained in the Wikipedia article, they're trying to verify that mail
actually came from a real mailbox and not a made up fake spam one. However,
I have a hard time understanding how this is filling up a mailbox until the
storage capacity is pitifully low.
POP is not designed to retain mail on the server. The "retain for x days"
functionality was an after-thought and the implications not fully
understood. It would probably make more sense to retain email in-house or
with another server. You could put your own mail server in between the
users and the internet, and retain mail there, but that may just be
shifting the problem.
Thanks Ted.
Possibly the tech who explained this to me did not fully explain what he
was doing. The "test" emails are not ever actually delivered, so there must
be something further going on; perhaps they contain a code that causes them
to be immediately tossed into the bit bucket. However, if the mailbox is
full when they arrive, they are, naturally, bounced, and any rejection is
then interpreted as "sender verify failed". I would think that at the very
least the thing should be able to read the actual text of the bounce
message and verify the sender if the message contains "over quota", since
such a message indicates that the account exists, but the guy insisted that
this is not possible.
Maintaining the security and functionality of an email server that
communicates with the internet is a headache I don't want or have time for.
(We have an internal email server but that is not a significant security
risk.) I'm a one-man IT department in an agency of nearly 100 computer
users. I barely have time to do what I already have to do. :)
Thanks,
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/5.2.1.1.1.20130429145507.01c93...@pop-server.stny.rr.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
