Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Imagineering

  1. Here is one from today... http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z703011027zf3...0a3655da34714ez
  2. Again only SpamCop is having a problem with this...do you see a theme THERE?
  3. Unable to do this (use the same inside and outside) due to the character limit presented by microsoft.
  4. To Imagineering, could you send a message from your coporate address to yourself or a friend outside of your corporate intranet and post the headers for that to see what the outgoing headers look like? 20349[/snapback] Posted as requested.
  5. There are two "domain names" that need to be considered here. The external domain is fully qualified (imagineering-online.com). The internal domain, which differs from the external domain name (imagineering) is not fully qualified, and other than being part of the hostname of the internal sending server, is not part of the mail path (received from line indicates imagineering-online.com, which is fully qualified) Again, the ONLY problem we are having is the error on submission that states it is not coming from a trusted mailhost. We are NOT having problems with and mail transmission of any sort, nor are there any reception problems. If there is a problem with the use of a separate internal domain with a single name, it is a Spamcop interpretation of the infomation that is the source of that problem. It should also be clear that there will be a great many people who will be having this problem with Spamcop if this is the case. Microsoft has quite a few knowledgebase articles on configuring single label domain names that discuss this type of configuration. dbiel asked for a pasted in header above, and that is what we provided for them. Please outline what is necessary to get the 'exception' discussed above please.
  6. Here is a full cut and paste of the headers sent to a friend. Return-Path: <Jeffrey.MacMillan[at]Imagineering-Online.com> Received: from mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net ([]) by mtao03.charter.net (InterMail vM. 201-2131-111-105-20040624) with ESMTP id <20041126182103.KZPZ4925.mtao03.charter.net[at]mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net> for <drcatchka[at]charter.net>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:21:03 -0500 Received: from mxip06.cluster1.charter.net (mxip06a.cluster1.charter.net []) by mxsf14.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAQIKkaV026328 for <drcatchka[at]charter.net>; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:21:02 -0500 Received: from imagineering-online.com (HELO IMAGINEERING-1.Imagineering) ( by mxip06.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2004 13:20:49 -0500 X-Ironport-AV: i="3.87,112,1099285200"; d="scan'217,208"; a="448877149:sNHT18105068" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4D3E4.A703E8E5" Subject: Testing Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:20:46 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Message-ID: <0659149ACA1AAE4F8C66D6E60A40D4520494FC[at]imagineering-1.Imagineering> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Testing thread-index: AcTT5KYoJ+1XuinZT22xmtfvFRxt3g== From: "Jeffrey G. MacMillan" <Jeffrey.MacMillan[at]Imagineering-Online.com> To: "Catherine Kiraly" <drcatchka[at]charter.net> I would profer the suggestion that this is a very common setup, used by many (100's) of our customers. If this would make Spamcop unusable to them, you are taking away a very important spam management tool, and hope you will reconsider.
  7. To All: Thank you again for replying, but nobody here has made any suggestions about what you think we should do about this. As was previously stated, mail is stoped at the gateway (firewall.imagineering), making sure that the rules that apply to mail are enforced. It is then passed to the mail server (with the original sender IP intact) for processing. The mail flow and rules appear to work just fine, since there are no sending and delivery problems (Though we have not gotten any emails from this board). This means, as you have said that something is not associated with a correct mailhost...but what? We have tried a number of different posibilities with the same result. Please provide suggestions to resolve the problem(s), as opposed to bantering on about single lable domains, or anything else that ultimately is not going to help.
  8. Thank you for your contributions, but I am still unclear as to what it is that we need to do to remove the ..."possible forgery...not associated with any of your mailhosts..." Single label domain names are fairly common... 'production', 'development', etc are used internally, and I am assuming that this is what you are referring to. The internal domain is 'Imagineering'. The domain externally is 'imagineering-online.com' Another note (not necessarily relevant to this conversation) we are not receiving the notification emails when a new post is made to this message. Never have. I can check to see if it is being caught in a filter, but need to know the from address. The seetings in the profile indicate that we should be getting them, so not sure where the problem lies. So it takes us a little while to respond, since we don't know that there is anything to respond to. Thanks Imagineering
  9. If I have been in any way unclear, I apologize. Here is an example posting. SpamCop v 1.383 © SpamCop.net, Inc. 1998-2004 All Rights Reserved spam Header Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z688227457zdb...a138f1e4e4187fz 0: Received: from firewall.Imagineering ([]) by IMAGINEERING-1.Imagineering with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:07:07 -0600 Hostname verified: cs671047-249.houston.rr.com mail.imagineering-online.com received mail from sending system 1: Received: from cs671047-249.houston.rr.com ([]) by firewall.Imagineering; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:07:02 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Hostname verified: cs671047-249.houston.rr.com Possible forgery. Supposed receiving system not associated with any of your mailhosts Will not trust anything beyond this header Tracking message source: Routing details for [refresh/show] Cached whois for : abuse[at]rr.com Using abuse net on abuse[at]rr.com abuse net rr.com = abuse[at]rr.com Using best contacts abuse[at]rr.com Sorry, this email is too old to file a spam report. You must report spam within 2 days of receipt. This mail was received on Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:07:07 -0600 Message is 2.5 days old Reports regarding this spam have already been sent: Re: (Administrator of network where email originates) Reportid: 1279187236 To: abuse[at]rr.com Reportid: 1279187237 To: spamcop[at]imaphost.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report another spam? Welcome, **********. Your average reporting time is: 6 hours; Great! Add fuel to your account Please help support this service - buy some reporting fuel today. Fuel is used as you report spam to bypass the nag screen. Unreported spam Saved: Report Now
  10. We are using spamcop for the reporting of our spam. We have a Checkpoint firewall, and an exchange server behind it (not uncommon by any means). We have the firewall set to preserve the sender information when examining any of the incoming mail, which has worked just fine for spamcop reporting prior to this mailhosts system. We recently signed on for the mailhost program, and have always gotten the message that the "...host was not found, and that it will not trust anything in the header beyond this point..." It then reports the firewall.domainname (ip address). The problem is that the IP address is not one of ours. I can only assume that it is the sender's IP, but why is it being associated with our host then? To be truthful, I am not seeing any benefit in the new system. We wanted to get a head start on this since it has been stated that you intend to make this a requirement, but it hasn't worked. We have added all of the hosts, but continue to have these issues. Further, we are unclear as to the impact that this is having on the actual reporting of the spam. Is there any wy to get off the mailhost system?
  • Create New...