Mark is lying. He forged this:
You have some serve! A copy of the logs (maillog/headers) is sent to your
ISP as well.
I you had bothered to check your maillog/headers, you would have seen this:
"Received: (qmail 72694 invoked by uid 3052); 20 Aug 2004 19:20:29 -0000"
Appears that Mark is continuing to forge data and post it here. Does this SPF
discuss list condone forgery?
Just to make it clear there is no public access to maillogs on AccuSpam's
dedicated server (qs662.pair.com) on Pair.com.
Mark is also quoting (use of " and ") what he purports to be valid maillogs
from his server. I think he may be using the comment above to insinuate (to
the less astute reader) that our logs are public and available to him. If so,
I want to make it very clear that is not the case.
Any one who doubts me is welcome to contact Pair.com and ask them if
qs662.pair.com mail logs are accessible publicly. The answer is an emphatic
"no".
I would ask Pair.com to make a public statement, but frankly it is is probably
not worth their time to refute Mark. But I am sure that Pair.com is not happy
about the allegation Mark is insinuating about Pair.com.
I you had bothered to check your maillog/headers, you would have seen this:
"Received: (qmail 72694 invoked by uid 3052); 20 Aug 2004 19:20:29 -0000"
This message apparently was queued by your server (after being blocked here
last night), and resent early this morning (after I deblocked you), at Sat,
21 Aug 2004, 10:47:11 +0200 (CEST). It is most certainly not a forgery. Your
ISP, I'm sure, will be able to corroborate that the above message was
transmitted from their servers.
This is possible (although I highly doubt Mark's intentions given he continues
to forge data above) because I did not bother to check AccuSpam's mail logs
(used a database check instead in my previous post), because one could safely
assume that when Mark accused me of still continuing to send auto-responses,
that he had first checked his own mail logs!
For the record on our reputation, Mark has clarified above that he was wrong
(lying) in accusing me of continuing to send auto-responses. Instead, he *NOW*
claims his mail server was delaying the delivery of an auto-response, which my
server sent *BEFORE* I stated in this thread that I turned off the
auto-responses.
Thanks,
Shelby