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.)