On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:51:40 -0500, Paul Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 1/16/2008 8:25 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> L Smith wrote on 01/15/2008 10:39:28 PM:
>>
>>> The administrator on the receiving end said is to do with the "reply to
>>> address" that is preventing the email coming through. Meaning the reply
>> to
>>> address must come from a genuine path and not an alias.
>>
>> How is [log in to unmask] (using the example of this list) not
>> "a genuine path"?  Emails sent to it are delivered to the correct
>> mailbox/process and handled according to the rules of that
>> mailbox/process.  How would they know that my address, wbrown AT-SIGN
>> e1b.org, is a "genuine path, and not an alias"?  For all they know, it
>> could be and they would never be able to tell.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know which spam filter they are using.
>>
>
>The entire explanation sounds bogus. I suspect that someone somewhere in
>the communications chain misunderstood and/or misinterpreted something.

Perhaps they are using SAV (Sender Address Validation) as an anti-spam
approach and it's failing. SAV is controversial. Read about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=sav+sender.address.verification

However, the administrator needs to give you more meat in his answer (either
logs with errors, clean explanation of what "valid" means in a return
address, etc.)