From an ISP running NTmail

> You have a problem with this?

My problem is that we've paid for software that is supposed to be fully
functional.  This other ISP, if they are running unlicensed software, is
limited to the same extent that we are, yet they haven't forked out a cent
and we've paid full price.  He's not nobbled completely, or even mostly,
just "inconvenienced".  Meanwhile, I have customers complaining that they
aren't able to send mail to this domain with our mail server, yet they are
able to with other ISPs (running different MTAs), so therefore "obviously"
our mail server isn't up to scratch.  Explanations about remote unlicensed
software fall on deaf ears.  Ours doesn't work, our competitors do,
therefore ours is the inferior service, and we lose customers.  Bottom line.
That, I have a problem with.

And now there is a further wrinkle.  It appears that Majordomo mailing list
pass through the Received headers intact, so we're getting customers dropped
from mailing lists because of undeliverable messages related to "554
transaction failed",
originating from that domain.

> Ever heard of the phrase "aiding and abetting"?

I have, but I fail to see what it has to do with this.  Are you saying that
anyone who runs sendmail, qmail, et. al. are in some sort of global
RFC-compliant-inspired conspiracy?

I don't have a problem with Gordano having keyed software and getting paid
for their work, however it seems to me the implementation is flawed.  I
would have thought if the software was unlicensed, it shouldn't run, or mail
Gordano directly.  Not affect those with legitimate paid-up versions of the
software.

And the original question still hasn't been answered - does this affect
NTMail version 5?

Regards,
  Daryl Tester
  Picknowl Systems Administrator.