Strange email from IB

Discussion in 'Retail Brokers' started by Babak, Jan 10, 2004.

  1. Babak


    I just got a strange email from IB on Friday. It was empty as far as I could tell (the body contained no text, image, file or anything else) and was from "" an address I've never received anything 'from' IB before!

    The subject heading was "subject".

    Anyone else receive this? whatup? :confused:
  2. gaj


    post headers, please?

    (not an ib person...)
  3. DTK


    All of mine are from help@... regardless of what the message concerns.
  4. I got one too. I deleted it.
  5. Babak


    Header as follows (The XXX'ed out part is my email):

    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:01:07 -0800
    Received: from ( [])by (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i09M17PR021730for <>; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:01:07 -0500 (EST)
    Received: (from uucp@localhost)by (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id i09M16b17201for <>; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:01:06 -0500 (EST)
    Received: from nodnsquery( by via csmap (V6.0)id srcAAAxhaaLH; Fri, 9 Jan 04 17:01:04 -0500
    Received: (from ibmail@localhost)by ibmkt1.ib (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id i09M13R16428;Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:01:03 -0500 (EST)
    X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFB7Stufqp0pUHLOeZ0sPkC
    Message-Id: <200401092201.i09M13R16428@ibmkt1.ib>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2004 22:01:07.0930 (UTC) FILETIME=[159E3BA0:01C3D6FC]

  6. This is absolutely hilarious. I e-mailed them two days ago and have not gotten a return e-mail yet, and your saying that you got one from them and it says nothing. Maybe it was the reply to my e-mail; with no information in it, it sounds exactly what they would send to me.
  7. bebe


    I got a similar blank email too.
  8. same
  9. Babak


    ok maybe its time to let this thread die as it seems others also got it as well. All I was trying to accomplish was to see if this was a one time fluke involving my account (in which case I would have been alarmed) or a system wide error. As it seems it was the latter, I think we should just let it go. Thanks everyone. :)
  10. :eek:
    #10     Jan 10, 2004