Using an external email address (say *** Email address is removed for privacy ***) and the outlook.com smtp.live.com SMTP server, authenticating using an outlook.com account (say *** Email address is removed for privacy ***) works fine and yields the usual mixture of email headers in outgoing email:
Return-Path: <*** Email address is removed for privacy ***>
From: *** Email address is removed for privacy ***
Sender: *** Email address is removed for privacy ***
as does Gmail.
Some email software receiving emails like this will reply to *** Email address is removed for privacy *** rather than the external email address, *** Email address is removed for privacy ***.
I have experienced this myself. Of course I want to avoid this.
Outlook.com supports the facility to rename the *** Email address is removed for privacy *** account to *** Email address is removed for privacy ***.
This seemed to offer the option of standardising all three headers as *** Email address is removed for privacy ***.
So I implemented this rename, which itself caused some problems, especially resetting all my send and receive external email accounts to send only, though still listing them as send and receive. I understand from this forum that many users have lost their emails doing the rename. However I keep my email on a local client so that could not happen.
After the rename, I get these headers:
Return-Path: *** Email address is removed for privacy ***
From: *** Email address is removed for privacy ***
Sender: *** Email address is removed for privacy ***
I made up this number rather than printing the one I got, but this hex number is in exactly the same format.
The original address *** Email address is removed for privacy *** does not feature.
Sending to this *** Email address is removed for privacy *** email address gets the reply:
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
Where did this Sender: header come from?
Why is it not *** Email address is removed for privacy *** or at least *** Email address is removed for privacy ***?
Thanks
Recent Comments