[quoted text, click to view] >1) We get an aboundance of return e-mails to POSTMASTER and Mailer-daemon
>Is there a way to stop these?
Stop sending to non-existent addresses, stop triggering SPAM filters,
etc.
LOL. This comes across as a spammer trying to use IIS/SMTP to peddle the
wares. Assuming that's not the case, why not just assume the bad addresses
are, well bad and eat the return? I'd set the retry to a few hours in this
situation so that I can handle transient errors. Bad addresses are hard
errors and should not get retried in the first place.
FWIW, their campaign enterprise is likely more along the lines of what
you're after. It handles bounces, removes, etc. That's something you need
to have happen here as you have a list of bad email addresses. Presumably
you received those email addresses in a legitimate manner and aren't a
spammer (that would be illegal, right?) but you do not have a way to keep up
with the email addresses. That's what the next level of software does for
you automatically. If you can't buy that from them, you should consider
doing this manually else writing a sync that does this for you; it's likely
better to buy it from them though.
Al
[quoted text, click to view] "Jeff Cochran" <jeff.nospam@zina.com> wrote in message
news:43e63bd9.118128468@msnews.microsoft.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:22:02 -0800, tbithoney <tbithoney@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>we are using a W2K IIS/SMTP server along with Arial email to send e-mail
>>to
>>our customers. the DB is around 125k.
>>
>>1) We get an aboundance of return e-mails to POSTMASTER and Mailer-daemon
>>Is there a way to stop these?
>
> Stop sending to non-existent addresses, stop triggering SPAM filters,
> etc.
>
>>2) I have all the retries set to 9999 so not to retry bad addresses, etc.
>>Is there another way? Are the 9999 OK to use?
>
> Best is to not send to bad addresses at all.
>
>>3) Any way to make this faster?
>
> Don't use Microsoft's SMTP.
>
> Jeff