There's no real way for it to tell that the message if failing because it
was deliberately forged.
- Original Message -
From: Alverson, Thomas M. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: IMC originator
Yes. Yes, you are missing something.
Section 3.39:
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_sec3.htm
and RFC2822
William Lefkovics, MCSE, A+
-Original Message-
From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
I thought those were emails from the good hands people?
-Original Message-
From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
Yes. Yes, you are missing something.
Section 3.39:
http
That is your server NDRing the attempted relays back to the spammers. Since
spammers tend to use bogus addresses those messages will likely timeout
after three days as undeliverable.
- Original Message -
From: Siegel, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Re: IMC originator
That is your server NDRing the attempted relays back to the spammers. Since
spammers tend to use bogus addresses those messages will likely timeout
after three days as undeliverable.
- Original Message -
From: Siegel, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions
friggin delete them...
-Original Message-
From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
So I should ignore those if they are not causing any other problem?
I have followed all
They will still appear for standard, valid NDR's as well.
William
-Original Message-
From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
So I should ignore those if they are not causing any
If they are stuck, I whack those as well!
-Original Message-
From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
They will still appear for standard, valid NDR's as well.
William
' or
relaying prohibited or am I missing something?
-Original Message-
From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
They will still appear for standard, valid NDR's as well.
William
Then Andy David's practice applies. :o)
Delete.
William
-Original Message-
From: Siegel, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
Ok, but they should not be sending ndr's in response
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
Ok, but they should not be sending ndr's in response to notification
messages is my point. If relaying disabled, messages that are 'spoofed'
should not generate an NDR in my opinion. I mean, why
Yep
- Original Message -
From: Siegel, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: IMC originator
So I should ignore those if they are not causing any other problem?
I have followed all the suggested
Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: IMC originator
Ok, but they should not be sending ndr's in response to notification
messages is my point. If relaying disabled, messages that are 'spoofed'
should not generate an NDR in my opinion. I mean, why should
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: IMC originator
The RFC isn't real clear on this. We've gone round on this before and it
seems that server can optionally deny the message
the
scope of my laziness. Also, my coffee cup is empty.
-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:03 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: IMC originator
Subject: RE: IMC originator
Is there any way
to a bad
spammer email address, while another NDR is destined for your
grandmother who mistyped your email address.
-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC originator
16 matches
Mail list logo