In <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] writes:

> I recently had two messages dropped, because the "Remote SMTP server
> rejected address". At first I thought this was simply because I had gotten
> it wrong (in one case I DID have to remov an anti-spamming accretion to the
> proper address). However, it seems that the real reason was because of a
> pargmatic reality with
> which I am confronted...

[snip]

> My question is this... How can I satisfy the apparent demands that the
> 'name' of the machine and the 'reply to' address and the 'sent from' address
> all be the same? I'm real reluctant to conduct all my correspondence via
> hp3000-l (no - it would get real boring for the rest of you!). But I cant
> reach the intended correspondents to ask for their help!  Aaaaagh!

I've never heard of an e-mail server requiring that all addresses within a
message be from the 'same' domain... That would be a very DUMB thing for a
mail server to do; your situation is not uncommon and it would certainly
affect many other users.

On the other hand, many mail servers nowadays (including ours) do insist
(if the option is enabled on the server) that any mail message contain only
valid domains in any of the addresses. Besides the obvious reason that many
spammers like to make up "from: user@internet" or some such garbage, if the
message contains an invalid return address (from or reply-to) a reply to that
message isn't going to be possible anyway.

I've noted a bunch of bounces recorded in our error logs from folks who like
to set their addresses to some cutesy message (not a valid address). You have
to realize the implications of doing this. Gone are the days of mail servers
blindly accepting (and relaying) e-mail messages (unless of course you're
using M$ Exchange... ;-) ;-) ). More and more users are losing productivity
under the flood of "unwanted" messages, and it just makes sense to filter as
much of it automatically as possible.

 -Chris (remove 'nospam' for replies -- but note the domain name *IS* valid)
    Bartram