All mail for one directory's in box going to Squirrel Mail

[#1]

For some reason unknown to me mail to one of my in boxes has either been going to Squirrel Mail's in box instead of the proper one in my Thunderbird email client, or even I suspect not getting through at all. None is marked as SPAM, and settings both in Plusnet and Thunderbird are AFAICS correct.
Ideas why and how to rectify will be welcome.

[#2]

Squirrel Mail is just the web-based client for accessing your mail, so unless you are redirecting you mail away from your PN address you will find it there. If you have set up Thunderbird to leave mail on the server, then you will continue to see mail you have downloaded with Thunderbird when you access Squirrel mail.
Having said all that there is something strange, probably Viral/malware going on with some peoples mail at the moment. Go to your manage my mail settings at the member centre and check they are what you set up. Likewise your Thunderbird settings. Can you please report back your findings asap. Thanks.

[#3]

Could you also clarify if you have received definite spam that hasn't been tagged (as per your double checked settings) ?
Edit: Could you also say whether you have any definite Spam that is tagged when you look at it in Squirrel Mail, but no longer tagged when/if you down load it.

[#4]

Oh dear! I deleted all the mail and purged as well. I think. EDIT All the mail in Squirrel was for known origin e.g. forum and news type to which I subscribe,
adie:quote

[#5]

Oh well. Never mind. Do you still have a problem? Did you double check your settings etc?

[#6]

Been out most of day, and quite involved tomorrow. Will report after w/e with details in case have missed something.obvious.

[#7]

Quote from: Anotherone

Oh well. Never mind. Do you still have a problem? Did you double check your settings etc?

I will not know either until one of the emails that I usually comes from either sitr lanfd in the ptper box or not.
Yes: the thunderbird looks OK, but van you see anything on PN's that might cause the problem?
Spam filtering  ON
Discard obvious spam  ON
Spam tagged YES
Move to spam folder YES
Filter aggressiveness 3
White/black lists. Items not included
Mailbox is listed

[#8]

I suggest you change "Discard Obvious Spam" to Off so that no messages are silently deleted - though you might not notice any effect from that change, and I doubt it has any bearing on the present problem. Otherwise the settings seem fine.
To check your problem mailbox actually works I suggest you send a message to it yourself from your normal mailbox; CC the same message to your normal mailbox too so you can verify the message does arrive. Does this work?
David

[#9]

David just beat me to that first point. If a genuine mail gets discarded, neither you or the sender knows. With the setting OFF - the default, the sender will get a bounce message and can advise you by other means and so you can consider whitelisting.
It sounds as though you get little or no Spam. If so, I'd be inclined to turn the Aggressiveness down to 1 (the default). The exact effects of this setting have not been spelled out, so personally I'd rather not risk getting false positives. You can always change it back if you get undesireable results.
The only other thing which is totally personal choice, is I 'Move to Inbox', as my spam levels are now very low to zero. This saves me having to login to webmail to check the spam folder for false positives.
HTH.

[#10]

Quote from: spraxyt

I suggest you change "Discard Obvious Spam" to Off ... Will do that .... I suggest you send a message to it yourself from your normal mailbox; CC the same message to your normal mailbox too so you can verify the message does arrive. Does this work? I did that, but also got son to do same too, and those messages got through. However at one time under the old spam checking hos messages did not get through to my personal in box, though he was a PlusNetter, and so he is white listed. The offending ones were from sites I subscribe to. David

@ Anotherome I shall follow your advice too.
Thanks both!!
EDIT As I have Avast installed, would it be better to revise Anti Virus Filtering:
to  No ?

[#11]

Quote from: lucerne

As I have Avast installed, would it be better to revise Anti Virus Filtering: to   No ?

I suggest you leave that set to Yes, as I do. Any message containing a virus is best quarantined at the earliest opportunity and an additional line of defence is to be welcomed.
Since your mailbox is working it is possible the missing messages are being refused due to poor SenderBase reputation of the sender's mail server. Do you have a set of headers you could post (with personal details sanitised) from the last time you received one of the messages (it doesn't matter if that is prior to IronPort introduction)?
David

[#12]

AV will remain at Yes then.
As it happens messages from both senders were received today and landed in the right in box after I'd adjusted my settings as per advice, However I do not have any of the offending ones, because they were deleted after reading. I don't suppose they're recoverable, and guess the new ones will be no help..
adie:quote

[#13]

It would seem that whatever was causing the problem has been corrected so the issue is resolved. However I suggest you do post sanitised headers for today's correctly delivered messages (or just one of them if they come from the same organisation) so that the mail servers are on the record in case the problem re-occurs.
Note: using the Reply link below the posts will avoid an unnecessary quote of the previous post appearing in the reply.
David

[#14]

Both headers follow below
From - Mon May 11 14:28:51 2009
X-Account-Key: account7
X-UIDL: UID266-1218578504
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                               
Return-path: <newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk>
Envelope-to: 20x08@username.plus.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:44:55 +0100
Received: from [212.159.7.103] (helo=mx.pcl-ipin04.plus.net)
  by fhw-inmx10.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1M3T0A-0006Z3-OU
  for 20x08@username.plus.com; Mon, 11 May 2009 11:44:55 +0100
Authentication-Results: mx.pcl-ipin04.plus.net; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=83.138.183.173;
  receiver=mx.pcl-ipin04.plus.net;
  envelope-from="newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk";
  x-sender="newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass identity=mailfrom; client-ip=83.138.183.173;
  receiver=mx.pcl-ipin04.plus.net;
  envelope-from="newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk";
  x-sender="newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=83.138.183.173;
  receiver=mx.pcl-ipin04.plus.net;
  envelope-from="newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk";
  x-sender="postmaster@118877-mail1.idg.co.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-SBRS: 2.3
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlQBAAOfB0pTirete2dsb2JhbACBMYNKiHSJIQEBFiIEpw6NOoI3ARiBLgWIOAM
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5611"; a="102758899"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,327,1238972400";
  d="scan'208";a="102758899"
Received: from 118877-mail1.idg.co.uk ([83.138.183.173])
  by mx.pcl-ipin04.plus.net with ESMTP; 11 May 2009 11:44:53 +0100
Received: from mail pickup service by 118877-mail1.idg.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Mon, 11 May 2009 11:44:53 +0100
Message-ID: <21573297-220095111104453180@email.pcadvisor.co.uk>
X-EMR-ID: VPQY4
X-EMR-BOOTH: PCA001
X-EMR-PP: 8IE0Q
From: "PC Advisor Newsletter" <newsletter@email.pcadvisor.co.uk>
To: "20x08@username.plus.com" <20x08@username.plus.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:44:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2009 10:44:53.0196 (UTC) FILETIME=[844BE8C0:01C9D225]
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
Subject: PC Advisor: Windows 7 versus XP
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090510-0, 05/10/2009), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
From - Mon May 11 14:28:52 2009
X-Account-Key: account7
X-UIDL: UID267-1218578504
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                               
Return-path: <naomi.skinner@licc.org.uk>
Envelope-to: 20x08@gersau.plus.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:32:01 +0100
Received: from [212.159.7.39] (helo=mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net)
  by fhw-inmx22.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1M3Ufo-0007A3-FA
  for 20x08@gersau.plus.com; Mon, 11 May 2009 13:32:00 +0100
Authentication-Results: mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=217.64.121.201;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net;
  envelope-from="naomi.skinner@licc.org.uk";
  x-sender="wholelife@licc.org.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass identity=mailfrom; client-ip=217.64.121.201;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net;
  envelope-from="naomi.skinner@licc.org.uk";
  x-sender="naomi.skinner@licc.org.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass identity=helo; client-ip=217.64.121.201;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net;
  envelope-from="naomi.skinner@licc.org.uk";
  x-sender="postmaster@licc.org.uk";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-SBRS: 2.3
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwHAJ+3B0rZQHnJe2dsb2JhbACBFYESLCEEhQSEF4p9AQEWIgS0fIN+BQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5611"; a="82057959"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,327,1238972400";
  d="scan'208,217";a="82057959"
Received: from exchange.licc.org.uk (HELO licc.org.uk) ([217.64.121.201])
  by mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net with ESMTP; 11 May 2009 13:31:58 +0100
thread-index: AcnSNHWp/a/ykxLXS4uCzqS5V2S/nw==
Received: from LICC-D10 ([192.168.2.35]) by licc.org.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 May 2009 13:31:50 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: "wholelife" <wholelife@licc.org.uk>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
From: "wholelife" <wholelife@licc.org.uk>
To: <20x08@gersau.plus.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:31:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C9D23C.9C542240"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4325
Message-ID: <LICC-SRV01pTd3L9Xnd000093c8@licc.org.uk>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2009 12:31:50.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[758F55B0:01C9D234]
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v5.00)
Subject: LICC - Word for the Week - How could they?
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090510-0, 05/10/2009), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

[#15]

Thanks.
Both email servers have good SenderBase reputations so no problems are to be expected with messages being rejected. This is, of course, consistent with what you found today.
Since the messages come from different email servers it would be a coincidence for both to be affected by a "perceived spam" problem at the same time. However whatever the problem was it appears to have gone away now and hopefully will not return.
David