[Scmail] Re: mini mail bombs

[Mike Easter]

Tim McGraw wrote:

> Forget the last one; I found two that are different, I'm going to
> write support.
>
> Sample line from #1:
>
> Received: from unknown (192.168.1.107)
>    by filter7.cesmail.net with QMQP; 12 Sep 2007 19:29:22 -0000
>
> Sample line from #2, delivered 10 minutes later but with identical
> time stamps:
>
> Received: from unknown (192.168.1.108)
>    by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 12 Sep 2007 19:47:03 -0000
>
> I think my MDA-to MUA-process may be FUBAR :)

If these above are like tops of the tracker before, mx(nn).cesmail.net
is supposed to tell comcast to delete it after it has received it
successfully and it - cesmail MTA spool? - is also supposed to delete it
'itself' after it has put it into your mailbox.

If cesmail were innocent and comcast were guilty, then comcast isn't
deleting after it has been told to;  but if cesmail were guilty, then
identical items like the tracker example could all be cesmail's fault,
not comcast's.

So, I'm saying the evidence 'points to' cesmail, not comcast -- because
cesmail could cause identicals like the tracker and cesmail could cause
the result of what you've posted here;  whereas comcast could not cause
identicals like the tracker.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin