Re: IMC originator

2002-01-10 Thread Daniel Chenault
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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Lefkovics, William
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:

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Andy David
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

Re: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Daniel Chenault
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

2002-01-09 Thread Siegel, Richard
: 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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Andy David
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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Lefkovics, William
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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Andy David
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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Siegel, Richard
' 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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Lefkovics, 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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Benjamin Winzenz
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

Re: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Daniel Chenault
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

Re: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Daniel Chenault
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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Alverson, Thomas M.
-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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread Tom Meunier
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

RE: IMC originator

2002-01-09 Thread David Lemson
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