Tim, thanks now that you mention that I did read that during my research..
thanks I'll pass that along also..
\t 09:32 AM 7/2/2006, Timothy Arnold wrote:
>Hi Debbie,
>
>Don't know if this has already been said, but I believe that the remote
>mail server needs to accept null sender (RFC823?) as a valid address. We
>shouldn't need to disable sender verification or change the from address
>just because the remote mail server doesn't conform to the RFCs.
>
>The reason for using null sender (correct me if I am wrong) is that this
>avoids a loop if they try to perform sender verfication as well.
>
>Cheers
>Tim
>
>
>On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Debbie Doerrlamm wrote:
>
>> >The external mail server, 209.42.34.104 is refusing the null sender.
>> >Simple test:
>> >
>> >$ telnet mail.idonails.com 25
>> >Trying 209.42.34.104...
>> >Connected to static.user104.209.42.34.dsli.com.
>> >Escape character is '^]'.
>> >220 idonails.com ESMTP MDaemon 6.8.4; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:07:15 -0400
>> >HELO elara
>> >250 idonails.com Hello elara, pleased to meet you
>> >MAIL FROM: <>
Regards,
Debbie ^v^ ^o^ //\o/\\ ^o^ ^v^ Webmaster - System Admin
webmaster@??? (AOL, CS or AIM NailGdsss - MSN Nailgodess)
WWWeb Services, Ronkonkoma, NY
631-981-1273 fax 631-981-7557
http://www.beautytech.com & http://www.beautytech.INFO
for Professionals for Consumers
