At 02:03 11/11/2004, S=F6nke Ruempler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 4:01 =3D
PM:
Why are you accepting, then bouncing, mail? In today's
climate of widely=3D3D20
forged envelope senders, it doesn't make sense to accept then bounce
- as=3D3D20 much as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:40 =
PM:
At 07:34 11/11/2004, S=3DF6nke Ruempler wrote:
You did not understand me. In my case is not the recipient invalid,
but =3D3D the sender ! Xmail accepts the Mail while an Exchange =
behind
Xmail doesn't.=20
=20
True. This is
At 02:12 11/10/2004, S=F6nke Ruempler wrote:
hi,
I noticed that XMail accepts addresses like:
MAIL FROM: Man_Bond_Communications_Limited[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is that right? If Xmail bounces this address, the bounce goes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?!
I can't speak to whether or not Xmail should accept
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, [iso-8859-1] S=F6nke Ruempler wrote:
hi,
=20
I noticed that XMail accepts addresses like:
=20
MAIL FROM: Man_Bond_Communications_Limited[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=20
Is that right? If Xmail bounces this address, the bounce goes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?!
Yes, XMail should puke on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 4:01 =
PM:
Why are you accepting, then bouncing, mail? In today's
climate of widely=3D20
forged envelope senders, it doesn't make sense to accept then bounce
- as=3D20 much as possible, things should be rejected during the
protocol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:54 =
AM:
MAIL FROM: Man_Bond_Communications_Limited[EMAIL PROTECTED] =3D20
Is that right? If Xmail bounces this address, the bounce goes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?!
=20
Yes, XMail should puke on such address. OTOH the bounce
should go
