On 8/25/05 3:13 PM, Scott Kitterman sent forth electrons to convey:
I would have expect that if SenderID was involved you wouldn't get a
recipient error. Exchange is odd in so many ways, it just seemed like
a leap to blame SenderID.
Thanks for reminding me. I remember swearing at the last Exchange
installation I administered. Lucky for me, it was several years ago.
In fact, it looks like you're right - I received a similar message
shortly after the first one with this in it, do to a post to the
ietf-mta-filters list:
dlemson(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com on 08/23/2005 12:22:38
554 5.4.4 Unable to route
but haven't received further messages from exchange.microsoft.com. So
was there a glitch? a change to the software? We'll prolly never know.
Anyway, I found the episode educational.
P.S. No need to cc: on list traffic. I do read the list.
Uh, I explained in the post why I'd cc'd you. I'm not a newbie. It
looks like you didn't bother to read half my email - you didn't respond
to several questions I asked you.
On 8/25/05 2:14 PM, Matthew Elvey sent forth electrons to convey:
Has hotmail turned on SenderID checks as was threatened? Checking to
see what happens to mail sent there... bcc'ing now...
Mail went through, and there's no evidence in headers of any SPF or
Sender ID checks having been done, and no 'safety bar' warning!
Another Microsoft-quality software implementation in evidence? :)
This seems to contradict statements Microsoft had made indicating that
it would be doing Sender ID by now.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/75563/hotmail-to-get-upgrade-today.html
reports 'em.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Hotmail_to_Get_Storage_Bump/1122443289
even says:
"Sender ID has already been live in the production version of Hotmail
since January of [2005]."
Very odd.