Dynamic IP Blocking

mbucks
Posts: 1

« Reply #144 on 25/09/2007, 12:39 »

I am not a particularly technical user but clearly have a problem.

I am now aware of several companies with whom I do business who are unable to email me.

However unlike many of the posts here they do not appear to even be getting rejection emails telling them that their email is underliverable. Their email is simply disappearing into some void and the only way I know is being chased on the telephone for answers to emails I never received.

How do we get their IP addresses "whitelisted" if they are not even getting bounce backs?

This is insane!

Logged

Jameseh
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 18368
Napier for England!

« Reply #145 on 25/09/2007, 12:46 »

Hi there,

we are absolutely taking on board your feedback and concerns.

I've asked Bob to take a look into this thread and he'll be along shortly.

James Bailey

Plusnet New Recruits and Advisor Graduation Lead
Service Status || RSS

Logged

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 6031

« Reply #146 on 25/09/2007, 14:42 »

Hi all,

Got a bit of catching up to do on this thread so I've picked out what I can find that doesn't seem to have yet been addressed...

Quote from: madbanana on 23/09/2007, 08:27

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

xxx@yyy.co.uk [this is the 123-reg domain name]
SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<xxx@yyy.co.uk>:
host mx0.123-reg.co.uk [195.224.48.118]: 550-Recipient callout failed for xxx@yyy.co.uk from
550 ptb-cgirelay02.plus.net

That's 123-reg's server that generated that bounce. It didn't seem to like something that our CGI relay servers did. Not 100% where the problem lies with this one. Did any of the test emails get through?

Quote from: johnandtina on 23/09/2007, 15:07

Well I must say, there seems to be something not quite right... I sent myself a 'reminder' email twice from my Yahoo address( which I access via webmail) about an hour ago to my force9 address and nothing has appeared. Equally I have not received a 'bounce-back' in my Yahoo account. So where are these emails.

Not sure if that's related. Was it a .co.uk Yahoo addy? I've just sent a few test emails from my Yahoo account to some PlusNet addresses and they all got through Huh?

Quote from: wuggywugrat on 24/09/2007, 14:30

What do I need to do now to receive emails from my accountants (apart from leave PN and get a better mail service from somewhere else?)?

Ask the accountants for a copy of the bounce (preferably complete with email headers) and forward the details to abuse@plus.net asking for mail from that source to be whitelisted.

Quote from: wuggywugrat on 25/09/2007, 12:36

So, is that it? Not many responses from PN to the concerns raised here and on other threads.... so can I assume that PN don't intend to change anything? That's it?

Sorry for the lack of a response. We strongly expect for the impact of these changes to lessen as the lists we are using are refined. If this does not come to fruition though, then we will of course revisit the implementation of this work.

One suggestion has been to initially reject with a 4xx (temporary) error as opposed to the current 5xx (permanent) errors. This would result in email delivery being attempted again and would help facilitate the white-listing of valid senders. Any changes we do make will be announced via Service Status.

Quote from: mbucks on 25/09/2007, 12:39

How do we get their IP addresses "whitelisted" if they are not even getting bounce backs?

It may not be the same problem but get them to send an email to an alternative address that you can receive the email too. Forward a full copy of the headers to abuse@plus.net and we can check the originating IP from that. Link to this post or provide a bit of background detail when doing so which will make sure we know what to look for (perhaps link to this forum post?)

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email

Logged

driveconsultants
Posts: 157

« Reply #147 on 25/09/2007, 15:00 »

I am really not happy about this situation.

I have just discovered that a large number of emails from a business contact have been lost. In some cases the failure to receive the right mail at the right time could cost me in the region of £20,000 to £30,000 in lost business.

I don't know how long it might take me to discover all the correct addresses that will need whitelisting, or even whether this is possible. These mails are probably coming from a CGI application on someone's website, at some ISP but I can't tell which.

Can't PlusNet see that they are going to lose a lot of customers through this badly thought out and badly communicated action?

Will you PLEASE stop the blocking of dynamic addresses IMMEDIATELY until the glitches can be ironed out.

Logged

tommytwotoes
Posts: 9

« Reply #148 on 25/09/2007, 15:12 »

Hi there, I've been reading this thread with much interest.

As a f9 business customer we have had a few cases so far (that we know of) of email being bounced.

I have forwarded these to the abuse address.

What I am concerned about is mail being bounced that we are not notified of and are therefore unaware of.

We have various software packages that we receive notifications for by email of critical updates etc. If we do not receive these, the consequences could potentially be very serious. We cannot rely on the software companies to notify us that our emails are being bounced.

As far as I am concerned the reaction by PlusNet support is wholly inadequate. It is unacceptable to expect a small business (and their clients/customers) to have the time to report on each case of mail not being delivered in order for it to be processed and whitelisted. In any case, from the error messages received from our clients it is also unclear where the problem originates. The part containing the abuse@plus.net address is missing.

It took me an hour or two to find this thread and therefore realise that the problem was being caused by PlusNet.

I am very unhappy.

« Last Edit: 25/09/2007, 15:14 by tommytwotoes »

Logged

itsme
Posts: 2154

« Reply #149 on 25/09/2007, 15:16 »

Have all PN's IP addresses been whitelisted? I run my on email server on a PN static IP and sending an email to a f9.co.uk account saw this in my server log file

Quote

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:24:23 -> Success: Action=[Detect DNS's], Details=[Found 4 entries.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:24:23 -> Success: Action=[MX Lookup], Details=[DNS=Using automatically detected DNS's, Domain=xxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk: Found 2 records]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:24:23 -> Success: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.core.plus.net:25, IP=84.92.2.1: Connection accepted.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:24:44 -> Failed: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.core.plus.net:25, IP=84.92.2.1: Connection closed unexpectedly or forced shutdown.]Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:24:44 -> Success: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.last.plus.net:25, IP=212.159.11.64: Connection accepted.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:25:05 -> Failed: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.last.plus.net:25, IP=212.159.11.64: Connection closed unexpectedly or forced shutdown.Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:23 -> Success: Action=[Process Mail], Details=[4 KB: Start transfer.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:23 -> Success: Action=[Detect DNS's], Details=[Found 4 entries.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:23 -> Success: Action=[MX Lookup], Details=[DNS=Using automatically detected DNS's, Domain=xxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk: Found 2 records]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:23 -> Success: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.core.plus.net:25, IP=84.92.2.1: Connection accepted.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:44 -> Failed: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.core.plus.net:25, IP=84.92.2.1: Connection closed unexpectedly or forced shutdown.]Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:34:44 -> Success: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.last.plus.net:25, IP=212.159.11.64: Connection accepted.]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:35:24 -> Success: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.last.plus.net:25, IP=212.159.11.64: Recipient Accepted: Caroline@xxxxxxx.f9.co.uk]
Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:35:25 -> Success: Action=[SMTP Transfer], Details=[Domain=xxxxxxx.f9.co.uk, Host=mx.last.plus.net:25, IP=212.159.11.64: Transaction completed, sent to 1 of 1 recipients successfully.]

Are the forced shutdowns due the the dynamic IP checking?

Strange if it is because I've been informed by a ticket that dynamic IP checking had been turned off

Quote

Dear Mr xxxxxx,
We have turned the dynamic IP filtering off on incoming emails but outgoing emails should be sent using:

relay.plus.net

Regards,

Logged

driveconsultants
Posts: 157

« Reply #150 on 25/09/2007, 15:27 »

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Just been in touch with the company that sends me these emails. They have sent me 11 mails today and 3 yesterday. Any one of them could have been an important deal - lost forever to someone else who grabbed the opportunity.

Can they give me any details of the server that send them out? No of course they can't, it's handled by a 3rd party bulk mailing company.

I have given PlusNet the benefit of the doubt over all the recent cock-ups - deleting our mail by accident, and allowing email addresses to get released by hackers, but this one is different. This one could be undone at a stroke and re-done with much more notice and better planning.

Think I will be leaving - and moving all my referrals too, at least when I find another ISP that offers the same features.

Please PlusNet - stop this now!

Logged

Paul03
Bright Spark
Posts: 1597

« Reply #151 on 25/09/2007, 15:38 »

@driveconsultants

At the risk of being shot down in flames!! Why don't you host your e-mail and domain externally with the likes of 1and1 or similar rather than rely on PN for mail?

I have my mail with 1and1 and (thankfully) don't suffer from the issues here(only address affected is my PN one which I don't use). Also means no mucking about with e-mail addies if/when you change ISP.

It may not be the solution for you (don't know your circumstances) but with £30K worth of business relying on e-mail may be worth thinking about (£2.99/yr for a domain 0.69p/month for e-mail)?

plusnet pro

Logged

driveconsultants
Posts: 157

« Reply #152 on 25/09/2007, 15:50 »

Paul_B

That may be a good option, but up until now I believed that PlusNet offered what I needed in terms of email. In theory what they offer in terms of domain hosting and mailboxes is excellent.

I don't use PN email addresses, all my mail comes to my domains which are hosted with PN and registered with UKREG.

The other point is, why should another company be any different to PN, what is to stop 1and1 suddenly deciding to commit financial suicide in the way that PN just did?

I have been trying to persuade the company involved to use something more reliable than email for this, but as I didn't have any better suggestions that hasn't got very far yet,

I will take a look at 1and1, thanks.

Logged

tomcat
Posts: 35

« Reply #153 on 25/09/2007, 15:53 »

PN have claimed that they are deleting emails originating from dynamic addresses. This can't be true, as there is no authoritative lookup of IP addresses for this purpose. Instead, I presume they are using a Policy Block List, such as that maintained by The Spamhaus Project. Unfortunately such lists are secondary in nature, and probably have a lot of errors. It would be very risky to blackhole emails on the basis of such a list. PN need to recognize that the loss of even a small amount of ham is unacceptable to its customer base.

Logged

itsme
Posts: 2154

« Reply #154 on 25/09/2007, 15:55 »

@driveconsultants

UKREG can also handle your email requirements. If you change the nameservers to UKREG, I assume that you currently using PN nameservers? You then can add A records back to PN for you domain hosting and then either use UKREG email forwarding or hosting. This can all be done within 4 hours or so.

Logged

Mark
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 1380

« Reply #155 on 25/09/2007, 16:08 »

Hi all.

We've just finished a meeting regarding this situation and have taken on board the valuable feedback and concerns in this thread.

We'll make an announcement very shortly outlining our plans.

Mark Kelly
Plusnet Business Services Manager
The UserGroup Forums | Come Join The Community
Free Broadband - So Where's the Catch | Plusnet Partner Programme

Logged

driveconsultants
Posts: 157

« Reply #156 on 25/09/2007, 16:18 »

Thanks Itsme.

Another good option. Yes I am using PN nameservers. Unfortunately I would have rather a lot of work to do in moving all the mailboxes and aliases as well as reconfiguring a dozen or so PCs in various parts of the country to collect from different servers. I am one of these people who supports all the rellies, several of who use email addresses at my domains.

Could be a major project. Much better to get the problem fixed. If only PN had decided to tag the dubious messages rather than deleting them.

Logged

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 6031

« Reply #157 on 25/09/2007, 16:39 »

Quote from: itsme on 25/09/2007, 15:16

Have all PN's IP addresses been whitelisted?

Yes, they have.

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email

Logged

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 6031

« Reply #158 on 25/09/2007, 18:58 »

Quote from: Mark on 25/09/2007, 16:08

We've just finished a meeting regarding this situation and have taken on board the valuable feedback and concerns in this thread.

Guys,

We've taken the decision to roll-back the changes that were implemented last week to improve the blocking of email sent from hosts with suspicious DNS entries and IP addresses suspected to be from dynamic ranges.

Whilst this is a widely accepted method of blocking suspicious email and is used by a number of large mail providers, it's fair to say following the feedback in this and other threads and the volume of rejected email from trusted sources that there's value in us taking a step back.

IMO, we absolutely must implement a similar or replacement solution to futureproof the reliability of our mail service, especially in the run-up to Christmas which has historically been a very nasty time for spam.

There is a possibility that some of the intermittent performance issues from before the roll-out may return now that the changes have been rolled back, however we're keen to work with the feedback we've had and get a revised or replacement solution in place that will mitigate these risks.

A Service Status has gone out.

Further analysis and a review of the implementation will commence tomorrow and following this we will publish our findings.

Keep the feedback coming!

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email

Logged

MikeWhitehead
Bright Spark
Posts: 744

« Reply #159 on 25/09/2007, 19:13 »

Why don't you make somewhere that users can upload/send e-mail headers of legit e-mails to? You could then build up the whitelist without it being live. After a month or two, then put it live. By that time everyone will have been warned that the system is going to be going back up, and they should have passed on the details of e-mail they get in?

Logged

Site Links

Related Sites

Community Apps

About Plusnet