David Cottle:
> On 13/01/2009, at 10:13, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>
> > David Cottle:
> >> Content-Description: Undelivered Message
> >> Content-Type: message/rfc822
> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >>
> >> Received: from server.engineering.idb (unknown [127.0.0.1])
> >> by server.engineering.idb (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F5B13C002D
> >> for <webmas...@aus-city.com>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:43:36 +0000
> >> (UTC)
> >> Received-SPF: none (no valid SPF record)
> >> Received: from hosting.mgapi.edu (unknown [82.179.217.2])
> >> by server.engineering.idb (Postfix) with SMTP
> >> for <webmas...@aus-city.com>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:43:35 +0000
> >> (UTC)
> >> Received: from dpkpyv (181.138.153.218)
> >> by hosting.mgapi.edu; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:43:44 +0300
..
> Hi Wietse,
>
> Sorry I am now totally confused as webmas...@aus-city.com is not
> invalid it's this address!
If webmas...@aus-city.com is valid, then the problem is that
your own system is returning mail for webmas...@aus-city.com
as undeliverable.
That problem has NOTHING to do with spam.
Wietse
