Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?
From: Pussy Galore (P.Galore_at_pussy_galore.com)
Date: 09/28/03
- Previous message: Rich Jordan: "Re: DS10 vs. DS40 and HP support"
- In reply to: Don Sykes: "Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?"
- Next in thread: Rik Steenwinkel: "Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?"
- Reply: Rik Steenwinkel: "Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:08:14 -0400
Don Sykes wrote:
> facet of the FBEM protocol. If the receiver decides for ANY reason it
> doesn't want to deal with the incoming request, it doesn't have to do
> anything and the message dies on the vine.
And with current SMTP specifications, if the received doesn't want to deal
with the incoming request, it can simply send the appropriate error message at
a RCPT TO, DATA or after the end of the DATA phase and the message dies on the
vine as well.
- Previous message: Rich Jordan: "Re: DS10 vs. DS40 and HP support"
- In reply to: Don Sykes: "Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?"
- Next in thread: Rik Steenwinkel: "Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?"
- Reply: Rik Steenwinkel: "Re: Process's PreciseMail AntiSpam Gateway - any experience so far ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]