Pretty sure we're already on son of RFC ignorant because their testing
program uses non-rfc5321 compliant messages for testing.
*shrug*
Postmaster does get about 10 messages a day from a single person
complaining that our abuse address actually has av and spam protection on
and rejects his messag
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>>See RFC 2142: "3. BUSINESS-RELATED MAILBOX NAMES
>>
>> These names are related to an organization's line-of-business
>> activities." …
>>
>>"SUPPORTCustomer ServiceProblems with product or service"
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> What? Someone didn't perfectly implement a 20 year old RFC? Alert
> the Network Police!
He can send support questions to netab...@gmail.com. I'll try to come up
with something witty for him.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360
In article
you write:
>See RFC 2142: "3. BUSINESS-RELATED MAILBOX NAMES
>
> These names are related to an organization's line-of-business
> activities." …
>
>"SUPPORTCustomer ServiceProblems with product or service"
What? Someone didn't perfectly implement a 20 year old RFC? Al
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're reporting here. Is it supposed to work?
>
> I found no reference to it on any official Google support websites when I
> searched for it.
>
> Did you just assume it'd work? Is there some presumption that it should
> wor
I'm not sure what you're reporting here. Is it supposed to work?
I found no reference to it on any official Google support websites when
I searched for it.
Did you just assume it'd work? Is there some presumption that it should
work by convention? I've never seen this stipulated.
Perhaps st
I tried sending email to supp...@gmail.com asking how to get
access to a gmail account where 3rd party authorization doesn't
work as the 3rd party is no longer available.
The message bounced as an invalid account.
Bill
--
INTERNET: b...@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL:
