>>Actually, IMail does just that for local domains--which is what Davy >>is getting at--but only if you're using the spammer's friend, 'Relay >>for Local Users.' > > moot.
Not at all (except that "moot" *actually* means "fruit for discussion," contrary to a popular perception, which I'm guessing you subscribe to, which has it as "not worth talking about"). My position is utterly germane to Davy's post; I believe these most recent suggestions are quite worth not only talking over, but implementing within IMail. > YOU come up with a scheme where every mail server that wants to send > to your users is known to Imail and must authenticate before sending > mail to your users, and we'll kick it around. This isn't the point of the last message, Len. You've gone haywire on an obsolete part of the thread. I've already corresponded with Davy off-list on this, and clearly agree on this other point with you, viz. MY post (please read it again for content :): > The reason your suggestion is invalid for a public mail server is that > remote mail servers cannot be expected to send AUTH credentials for > your MX record (some can if manually configured, others, like IMail, > can't at all). Davy understands the impracticality of this concept. But he has referred to three different technologies; in the LAST message in THIS thread, he concludes: > what i DO EXPECT is:instead of checking whether the sender's address > is @aaa.com, the SMTP server will examine whether the sender using > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is valid or not. this is called a true authentication. He is always referring to aaa.com as the recipient's domain, and so my comments are relevant and the suggestions to Ipswitch quite possible to implement. You're changing his vocabulary in mid-thread to mean "any domain," which has led to your confusion. -Sandy To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
