if the answer given is wrong explain how the manual indicates it
the very method to use to set the envelope-sender
*sigh* Among other details, MSDN indicates that the apparent sendemail
property in Configuration.Fields is one of several macros for the
Sender property on the Message object, and that the EnvelopeFields can
only be accessed in the context of SEO.
{i'm not claiming it is the only or best method just the first seen
via a cursory glance a documentation}
You have not found a method that works. It is neither only nor best:
it _does not work_. And the reason you do not know this is that you do
not have experience with the technology at hand.
You actually said that familiarity with a library is unimportant to
"anyone but the programmer" -- anyone but the programmer who wrote the
compiled library? *snicker*
no anyone but the programmer writing the app that utilises the library
{how is this not obvious!!}
It's not obvious because, um, neither interpretation makes sense.
[1] The library programmer, [2] the systems programmer, *and* [3] the
person who acts like he can help anyone with any library in fact need
to be familiar with the library. Or they screw up. Which you did.
where do i lie about familiarity, I have installed and
configured/fixed exchange servers since it was first released. yes i
never recommend it {but that is simply due to its longstanding
non-rfc non-BCP behaviour*} but many of my customers run it and I
administer it for them.
Anyone who has really supported Exchange has heard of CDO: your claim
continues to be flatly unbelievable.
I say again: it's perfectly fine for you to not have heard of CDO, as
it is not RFC-standard SMTP technology: why do you take this truth so
hard that you keep trying to be master of all domains? You seemed to
bow out when you said you aren't a "M$" user, but once I said I would
take it from there, you tried to act like you could have equivalent
success to someone who (a) is a programmer and (b) is not overtly
unfriendly to Microsoft products.
*even now its incapable of forwarding messages in a way that
complies with microsoft's own demands on forwarders to comply with sender-id
I havn't claimed any authority on M$ or CDO, just on SPF and SMTP
Sender-id etc. I HAVE stated i have never heard of CDO and have no
need to not being a software programmer
As I said -- it seems so long ago -- you can't believe you are have
the expertise to help someone with using an SMTP library if you (a)
are not a programmer and (b) have never heard of the library.
That's what product-specific experience is for. You can hardly
convince experienced professionals that there is no utility to having
day-one familiarity with actual products, not just RFCs.
why would anyone want to do that? i worked for MSN for long enough
to know that i wouldn't ever want to do that
Then stop pretending you can help people with Microsoft technology!
That can be very dangerous: you might not care to use tired epithets like
'M$' and 'tecNOT' anymore, and what fun would
life be if you couldn't mock somebody's platform choices while
claiming you were there to help (for money)?
sorry but yes i will berate their tech as long as i see it being
the main PITA for all of the mailsystems of receivers and senders i maintain
I am not denying that the company deserves a measure of mockery.
However, these epithets are so cliché at this point that they seem to
me to indicate platform fascism and willful ignorance more often than
they indicate a mixture of skepticism and skill.
Your performance in not having heard of CDO and not even trying your
would-be solutions does nothing to dispel my intuition in this case.
It may not apply in other forums (for example, when people use the
epithets in support lists for Windows products).
Anyway, go get 'em on the use of frames, le tigre. You want me to
PayPal you something for your trouble in going to MSDN for two
seconds?
as i said i wish to discontinue this continued personal attacks, i
find it inappropriate for a supposedly professional forum
I have not resorted to your level and only responded here due to
the personal nature of your comments
Hm, your "if help not wanted from those with expertise let them go and
f*ck up however they want" isn't an implicit attack on the person who
has decided to provide help (not to mention an attack on the OP)?
--Sandy
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com