Strange e-mail problem
Quote from: itsme Probably related to this problem
DEFINITELY related to the recent(ish) changes but not necessarily to that particular aspect of them. The sending IP [64.62.176.240] quoted in the message above does not appear to have an rDNS entry. However, the reason I believe that you eventually received it is because the checking for rDNS and rejecting on a lack of is apparently unreliable and inconsistent IMHO. If the process actually worked 100% as intended then I doubt you would ever have received the message from the info I can see no matter how many times it was re-sent. I have no idea since when rDNS was being checked by PN but have so far been completely unable to elicit any form of response from PN on the subject. I do not recall seeing any announcement of the introduction of this process (only the recent 'improvemnts') nor can I find any 'help' information concerning exactly what mandatory filtering is done on receipt or what conditions must be satisfied in order to ensure satisfactory delivery.
I have a growing number of messages logged that clearly DO NOT have rDNS entries but were still accepted by PN. Ditto for compromised dynamic addresses of course as that probably accounts for >99% of all my spam. I have always (since 13th May this year) had no shortage of spam messages without rDNS entries in particular despite various comments from PN that rejection on lack of rDNS has been in force for some time now. The recent changes are apparently 'improvements' to the process but there actually appears to have been a distinct INCREASE in spam received without a valid rDNS entry over the last few days compared to over the last few weeks.
In addition to this, I also appear to have been losing some 100% totally valid and 100% non-spam messages yet again
I have no idea if they have been officially bounced, rejected or simply dumped but either way they certainly didn't arrive. There is absolutely no evidence that messages from the sources concerned are in any way spam, are in any way black-listed or are in any way without rDNS entries etc. and in all cases have been received by other Service Providers. In addition to that, I would be hard pushed to document problems with ANY random missing or lost messages over the last 10 years I have been with PN ... until very recently when they started mandatory filtering on receipt.So, in summary, plenty of spam without rDNS entries and/or directly from dynamic IPs despite the 'improvements' and various totally genuine messages apparently deleted/rejected/whatevered for absolutely no good reason whatsoever
And NO, Mr.PN, it's not likely to be co-incidence. Several different sources of messages didn't just happen have some problems that just so happened to result in my messages not being received, the common denominator is almost without doubt PN but, as I'm quite sure you're well aware, virtually unprovable so you get away with it again !BTW, Be3G, you're by no means the only one whining about e-mail problems on a regular basis - I seem to be doing much the same - probably because they seem to keep on happening of course !! No significant (if any) random problems over the best part of 10 years but now we're apparently paying for that by having plenty of late
PS: why doesn't 'quick edit' seem to work properly ?
You may well be right about some cross-connection with the DSPAM settings, who knows, but I don't and never have had the optional spam filtering enabled. I simply don't trust PN to decide what mail I can and what mail I cannot read - and have many good/proven reasons to totally support that decision !
I think that you're right in saying that rDNS checking is apparently mandatory at MX level and therefore shouldn't be affected by optional filtering settings. However, based on the apparent unreliability of the rDNS filtering, I would suggest that it was most likely pure co-incidence that you received the message after tweaking the settings. I guess that regardless of settings you probably stand a 1 in 'n' chance of receiving a message with no rDNS entry - some (maybe most) messages will be deleted/rejected but some will get through. I've no idea how big 'n' is or whether one or more individual servers aren't working properly or if it's just a random bug across the board. You could perhaps try restoring your original settings and requesting the offending message be re-sent again several times to see how many do turn up if that's possible.
The reason I suggested there was no rDNS entry (regardless of what may be in the message headers) is simply because when I did a look-up on the IP using my usual handy application it repeatedly came back with an error message "no data".
A quicky check with the authoritative server confirms this:
So the simple fact is that if/when the rDNS checking process is working 100% as intended, you will NEVER receive messages from this particular source ... and no doubt many others. PN is now on par with AOL and hotmail in deleting/rejecting mail willy-nilly without informing users about it, blaming someone else for any problems it causes users and expecting individual users to sort out any problems with a specific sender themselves But this is only remotely possible to resolve in any case if they actually do realise that they're losing mail in the first place of course ! Yes, the sender is blatantly in the wrong here (non-compliant with RFC1912) but an individual PN user has about as much chance of getting that sorted as they do getting PN not to delete/reject their genuine mail in the first place. Just imagine how much more fun this is going to be if/when they start deleting/rejecting messages apparently from dodgy dynamic IPs 
Thanks spraxyt for confirming it wasn't just me and/or finger trouble re 'quick edit' and I promise to read the other forums before posting next time
RTFMF and all that 
I think that you're right in saying that rDNS checking is apparently mandatory at MX level and therefore shouldn't be affected by optional filtering settings. However, based on the apparent unreliability of the rDNS filtering, I would suggest that it was most likely pure co-incidence that you received the message after tweaking the settings. I guess that regardless of settings you probably stand a 1 in 'n' chance of receiving a message with no rDNS entry - some (maybe most) messages will be deleted/rejected but some will get through. I've no idea how big 'n' is or whether one or more individual servers aren't working properly or if it's just a random bug across the board. You could perhaps try restoring your original settings and requesting the offending message be re-sent again several times to see how many do turn up if that's possible.
The reason I suggested there was no rDNS entry (regardless of what may be in the message headers) is simply because when I did a look-up on the IP using my usual handy application it repeatedly came back with an error message "no data".
A quicky check with the authoritative server confirms this:
Quote ns2.he.net. (an authoritative nameserver for 176.62.64.in-addr.arpa.,
which is in charge of the reverse DNS for 64.62.176.240)
says that there are no PTR records for 64.62.176.240.
So the simple fact is that if/when the rDNS checking process is working 100% as intended, you will NEVER receive messages from this particular source ... and no doubt many others. PN is now on par with AOL and hotmail in deleting/rejecting mail willy-nilly without informing users about it, blaming someone else for any problems it causes users and expecting individual users to sort out any problems with a specific sender themselves
But this is only remotely possible to resolve in any case if they actually do realise that they're losing mail in the first place of course ! Yes, the sender is blatantly in the wrong here (non-compliant with RFC1912) but an individual PN user has about as much chance of getting that sorted as they do getting PN not to delete/reject their genuine mail in the first place. Just imagine how much more fun this is going to be if/when they start deleting/rejecting messages apparently from dodgy dynamic IPs Thanks spraxyt for confirming it wasn't just me and/or finger trouble re 'quick edit' and I promise to read the other forums before posting next time
RTF
