Random missing e-mails
Quote from: dave When we've done this kind of blocking in the past it's been based on the entire subject line with the exception of the words "Megadik" and "Wundercum" which were wildcarded. The blocking would have been done because the subject exactly matches that of a particular virus. Changing the wording slightly would mean that it isn't blocked.
I do know that the last time I checked, subject filtered messages were in fact rejected correctly but the users complaining about mail going AWOL do not appear to be getting formal rejections do they ? Is the problem that occurred last Wednesday when some mail was simply being dumped still in fact present ? My mail volume feels a bit light although it is a short week of course and I must say that I'm not aware of any definitely missing since last Wednesday. I will try my usual test mails later and post again if I don't get the desired result otherwise it's safe to assume all looks well if there is no follow-up message
I know I keep on about PN possibly blackholing stuff after receipt but your comment elsewhere stated that any (first line) filtered mail is always formally rejected and never silently deleted - well apart from during last Wednesday of course. Only second line filtering can therefore result in blackholing and only then if the user selects this action themselves, otherwise it's presumably put in the good old spam folder if filtering is enabled. Surely, these users would either be receiving these *spam* tagged messages or bounces to wherever they sent the test emails from ? ... unless the user has the relevant mbox blackholed or set to delete *spam* automatically or the sender has something a bit screwy in the from: or return address: fields of course. Perhaps users who are losing mail should double check their settings and addresses etc. if they haven't already done so just to ensure that there are no 'surprises', typos or anything that could possibly make the message 'appear' to be rather more spammy than would be reasonable ?
Quote rbl's, invalid helo arguments etc. are *rejected* with a range of messages: 5xx for the stuff that's dropped and 4xx for the stuff that's rejected. Anything that's rejected with a 4xx will instruct the sending host to attempt delivery again later. Even the stuff we block on subject matter is rejected with a 501. The only mail we silently delete is the stuff that's marked as spam when the customer has selected the option in their mail settings to delete this at server level. We also delete black holed mailboxes etc. We can't reject this stuff because at that stage it's past the ACL.
Hmmmm, just sent one of my usual test messages which pretty much guarantees a rejection based on subject: to the following addresses and also a CC: to two non-PN/F9 Addresses for test purposes:
test@My_PN_Account.plus.com
test@My_F9_Account.force9.co.uk
test@My_Second_PN_Account.plus.com
test@My_Second_F9_Account.force9.co.uk
The messages were sent using hotmail but out of the 4 PN/F9 addresses in the To: field, the message was only rejected by 3 of them (almost immediately) but needless to say wasn't delivered to any. Messages were delivered to the non-PN/F9 addresses immediately. The bounce only states that delivery failed and unlike a bounce received direct from relay when attempting to send via PN/F9 it does not say why. There is unfortunately no information as to which mx-core/mx-last rejected the message or indeed any other useful info at all really.
Two further attempts at sending the same message to the same destinations also via hotmail got bounces from all 4 PN/F9 addresses as would be expected.
However, two attempts at sending the same message to the same destinations using Another_ISP.co.uk A/C did not result in bounces from or deliveries to PN/F9 addresses but the messages were delivered to the non-PN/F9 CC: addresses immediately. It is obviously possible that bounces will appear some time later but I don't think I will be holding my breath whilst waiting !
It's obviously difficult bordering on impossible to determine whether the intermittent/missing bounces are due to PN not rejecting messages correctly or the sending system not forwarding the bounce back to the sender but either way, the net result is that not all messages being filtered based on subject: appear to be receiving bounces
This clearly demonstrates precisely why I seriously dislike any form of filtering that is not under my control. Problems can and will happen and yet no one is ever going to take any responsibility for them, they will simply point the finger at the other party !
test@My_PN_Account.plus.com
test@My_F9_Account.force9.co.uk
test@My_Second_PN_Account.plus.com
test@My_Second_F9_Account.force9.co.uk
The messages were sent using hotmail but out of the 4 PN/F9 addresses in the To: field, the message was only rejected by 3 of them (almost immediately) but needless to say wasn't delivered to any. Messages were delivered to the non-PN/F9 addresses immediately. The bounce only states that delivery failed and unlike a bounce received direct from relay when attempting to send via PN/F9 it does not say why. There is unfortunately no information as to which mx-core/mx-last rejected the message or indeed any other useful info at all really.
Two further attempts at sending the same message to the same destinations also via hotmail got bounces from all 4 PN/F9 addresses as would be expected.
However, two attempts at sending the same message to the same destinations using Another_ISP.co.uk A/C did not result in bounces from or deliveries to PN/F9 addresses but the messages were delivered to the non-PN/F9 CC: addresses immediately. It is obviously possible that bounces will appear some time later but I don't think I will be holding my breath whilst waiting !
It's obviously difficult bordering on impossible to determine whether the intermittent/missing bounces are due to PN not rejecting messages correctly or the sending system not forwarding the bounce back to the sender but either way, the net result is that not all messages being filtered based on subject: appear to be receiving bounces
This clearly demonstrates precisely why I seriously dislike any form of filtering that is not under my control. Problems can and will happen and yet no one is ever going to take any responsibility for them, they will simply point the finger at the other party !
