ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Site policy vs. HELO

2005-03-08 14:28:52

Well Bruce,

Please don't get offended. I can assure you we will not be offended if there
was a problem found.

You told us "nothing."   As far as I am concern, you proved my point time
and time again.  When there us a legitimate sender,  they will report any
issue if it mattered to you.  In fact is,  the times you do write to me
your address is always verified without a problem.

In this case, we add a backend beta ware issue -  a bug which I need to find
out so I appreciate the report.  A reverted to a day earlier version for now
and restarted. I can see your message came in now for which I will respond
to now.

But bear in mind, this  is absolutely unrelated to any sender authorization
fault you might be against.  Your points on the matter is completely
unwarranted and by far, the statistics we have over 1.5 years of operations
in thousands of sites completely nullifieds your input on the matter.   In
short, you have no practical experience here and it is 100% completely
"feelings" base.

Meet you in the next message.

Sincerely,

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Site policy vs. HELO




On Tue March 8 2005 14:51, Bruce Lilly wrote:

I predict that the courtesy copy of this message will also
bounce for no good reason.

Wheee! Here we go:
===========================================================
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.

The Postfix program

<winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>: host 
mail.winserver.com[208.247.131.9]
said:
550 Return Path not verifiable. (in reply to RCPT TO command)
===========================================================

I hate to have to say it, but "I told you so".




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>