David Cottle:
>
> On 13/01/2009, at 11:44, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Hi Wietse,
>
> Sorry that is incorrect I am not sending out Viagra emails. I look at
THIS WAS MAIL FOR webmas...@aus-city.com.
IT IS NOW BEING RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE.
THIS MESSAGE DOES NOT HAVE YOU AS THE SENDER.
Wietse
