On 8/22/07, Kevin Parris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it might be easier if you would simply have a conversation with > the techy folks at your customers- invite them to configure THEIR system > so that either everything from YOUR system is OK no matter what spam > status it has (they can route it to bit-bucket or whatever) or turn off > the reject-notice function on such messages, and then you won't have to > worry about the problem. Of course that would be the most clean approach for both, but for them is easier to just keep rejecting the mail. Also the mail is being rejected by and appliance called fortiguard not the mail server directly. For that my interest in a our-side solution.
> > Alternatively, just as a point of goofy curiosity, if they don't want > your system doing spam filtering for them, why do they even bother > having your system in the path for the traffic anyway? Why not just > point their MX record straight to their machine? Because they are paying for the Virus scanning feature ... > > > >>> "sacoo sacoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/22/2007 8:10:58 AM >>> > Well, maybe I didn't explain it properly we are not providing relay for > the outgoing mail, we are only filtering for viruses/spam the incoming > mails and the part that are junk of them are the ones bouncing to us and > giving problems. > > >
