On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 13:07, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Now, either the new sender behaviour is what was intended, in which case
> the caching of the domain negative needs to be stopped, or the new
> sender behaviour is a mistake, in which case the old behaviour needs to
> be re-adopted.
The new behaviour is correct in its use of a sender address, incorrect
in its caching.
As a workround turn caching off.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
