Dynamic IP Blocking
I am now affected by this from my own web server running on my ADSL line. It is also affecting another system I maintain on a BT line which sends out system status emails to one of my PN addresses.
This is no longer an acceptable situation for me!!!
This is no longer an acceptable situation for me!!!
Quote from: paulby Would it be useful to forward mail headers from a mail that reached its destination (I have another account hosted by 1&1)? If so, I can do this later when I get home.
Yes it would. The rejection message should contain the originating IP but in your case it appears that the MTA that handled the rejection has truncated the message meaning the IP isn't visible
Quote I am now affected by this from my own web server running on my ADSL line. It is also affecting another system I maintain on a BT line which sends out system status emails to one of my PN addresses.
This is no longer an acceptable situation for me!!!
Peter we can whitelist specific hosts but if you yourself are maintaining these lines then the email will be getting sent from the IP address assigned by the ISP (which are likely to be assigned from dynamic address space). Can the emails not be sent via our relays (in our case) and via BT's SMTP server?
Edit: Just to add to this Peter, by smarthosting the mail through the ISP you will undoubtedly find that you'll encounter fewer problems over time as more and more admins lock down on dynamic IP's. We are not the and will definitely not be the last. It's what the industry has to do, as we have to become responsible for the spam being generated by our users. When we end up on blacklists and RBL's then to say it's not our fault it's our end users just doesn't cut the mustard.
Quote from: astarsolutions ... started using the relay servers as a lot of my message were getting bounced back. Plusnet certainly aren't the only ones doing this.
You're quite right, PN are not the only ones to implement some rather draconian but mandatory filtering that is virtually guaranteed to cause a variety of problems for some customers. However, it also has to be said that even the likes of AOL and Hotmail are "open and honest" enough to (eventually) admit to the fact that they're doing it and then provide relatively clear and definitive details on what they're doing and more to the point, what their requirements are to result in mail being successfully received by them and subsequently delivered to customers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong and/or have missed an announcement but the increasing scope of the mandatory first-line filtering was not formally announced, to a certain extent has even denied (by comments such as "we have not made any mail server changes that would have resulted in dramatic changes in the volume of spam received" or "there is clearly a problem with the sender not sending stuff rather than with us not receiving stuff" or words to that effect) and there is no clearly defined specification of exactly what the PN requirements now are in order to guarantee (within reason) that mail will be received and delivered to a customer in a timely manner.
I always used to laugh at the (very sad IMHO) peeps who send an e-mail, wait 5 mins and then get on the phone to ask if the recipient has received it and generally told them to go and get themselves a decent service provider if they were having problems that necessitated this as I had never had any problems with random incoming stuff going missing or random outgoing stuff failing to get sent over the best part of 10 years. Oh how things change
The CS agent forgot to add the IP address for the
forward dns = "www.moonpod.com" 83.138.187.175
which is a different IP o the reverse
I hope that PN have corrected their rDNS entries as these have been incorrect in the past
forward dns = "www.moonpod.com" 83.138.187.175
which is a different IP o the reverse
I hope that PN have corrected their rDNS entries as these have been incorrect in the past