On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 02:23:09PM -0500, kpneal@pobox.com wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 04:49:21AM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:00:16AM -0500, kpneal@pobox.com wrote:
 [...]
> > > <Location />
 [...]
> > > </Location>
> > 
> > You didn't answer my question if I should be concerned.  Are you implying
> > that it *did* go through?  Or is the above a "just in case" or "just to
> > make things explicit"?
> 
> What was in your web server logs? Was it a 403 or was it a 200-something?
> If 403, you are fine. If 200-something, the connection went through. 

Both remote attempts were marked with a "405" number (which looks like
an SMTP "temporary error" class).  There was also a number in the 300's
after that.  (316 on the first and 308 on the second.)  (Well, it's been
a long time since I read the SMTP specs and wrote a server for it.  (^&
I think that 400's were temporary errors.)

My hand-crafted attempt from my LAN got a 400 and 304 pair of numbers.


Thanks.


-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  --rkr@olib.org