cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

FIXED
apage
Hooked
Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-06-2020

Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

I sell books from my website, but today I could not send a delivery confirmation email to a customer who had a Plusnet account because the msx.avasin.plus.net spam filter registered it as spam with error no. 552. My business emails have a footer with (1) my email address, (2) my business website address, (3) my blog address, and (4) a link to a website unsubscribe page which customers can click on to stop any further emails from me. I investigated this carefully and found that apart from my email address, if just one of those other three links was present then the plusnet spam filter stopped it from reaching a customer. When none of the links was included the same email reached the customer. (I was able to investigate this by sending copies of the email from my gmail account to my own Plusnet account, not the customer's!) None of the sites my emails link to is blacklisted. I tested the same email sent from my gmail account with all the links in it on the website mail-tester.com, which checks emails for anything that might be spam and it gave a 10/10 perfect score (including all the links).  I don't have any problems sending my emails to anyone who doesn't have a Plusnet account. So the problem is clearly with Plusnet's spam filter. All the links are to secure (https) websites. So would someone in management please tell the Plusnet filter that my websites are clean and my emails are not spam? The websites are https://www.booksforlife.today and https://unearthingthetruth.info, and the unsubscribe link (which is a legal requirement) is to https://booksforlife.today/unsubscribe.html. Until this problem is fixed I am in danger of losing some business through emails not reaching customers or potential customers. I've attached the full source of one of the rejected emails.

 

Moderators Note: Attachment with personal information removed

13 REPLIES 13
Townman
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 20,141
Thanks: 8,212
Fixes: 104
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Hi @apage 

A warm welcome to the forums.  There is more going on here than the simple "Plusnet is treating my URLs as spam".

I have tried to reproduce the problem.  I sent an email to one of my Plusnet mailboxes, containing the following...

https://www.booksforlife.today
https://unearthingthetruth.info
https://booksforlife.today/unsubscribe.html

 ... from

  1. The same Plusnet email box - no problem
  2. An Outlook.com email address - no problem
  3. Another Plesk email address - no problem
  4. A Gmail address - failure as you describe

This rather looks like a Gmail to Plusnet issue - possibly the problem being with Gmail.  Here are the message headers from my Gmail non-delivery report...

Delivered-To: me.gmail@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a19:4353:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m19csp4539013lfj;
        Mon, 8 Jun 2020 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:31d1:: with SMTP id j17mr11565762lfe.148.1591613609094;
        Mon, 08 Jun 2020 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1591613609; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=e13pvY9/xSLrW+T5RLZxGKSg0Ei5tPPTFYRyPDyPoUUoYgs/EKnKn6kQ3tyVdiiUXy
         GwwiujU5TSUuyI+Eib1H9Wx8LeIgqCucHrqvFvIsVW0D+wA9RavdPovQwm0G4FR7OWa+
         DdtEEhwD8VwL5Po6lbX2+rw4/qqymMU6kmqQfthpDeLDPB9eiqLE4k6xXR+Hr8EU68Qb
         Gf4syhFM6O055I53CT1VSRfEGBh3Jf/3quSnHfXczJfE11mrr8J4V6Lhddl6RKss70OX
         3oDcNU8aj3R4baYNVcQCLcVyk/4mM612pj3nNFpjNBHg17Bdj1AYVXTzvH1m/2wTNCt+
         10fw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=in-reply-to:references:subject:from:date:message-id:auto-submitted
         :to:dkim-signature;
        bh=c6vvSLmZOwM43j9TNAePnFK4iS4jrb75dBgJkEWX5G8=;
        b=Eev3jX4D4+YCxJAieYOqnR9Du6OHqHAJatdGDZbnOqBnVcgno2UU6LFwMstXIToKka
         4uutuxqp3t+BoDMd/G/zWimNy06L/83HeeA2ci0oeQRzuP3874A3burjZGyXK+ronb5g
         oEResTJCixLcc+S1svq97hKEXLbBhmJf4/mlzCSNLG0TPgvPpGCgG1t92HRQc5yO6HNf
         5g2PCY9RgU41f9njXKf7iYyVDSe+TuZ6UFqiL7KXv/RIvNwABPP8/ZAyzsTP6YZqsXzo
         Bo3naBPjtgl8BG0vjvNdugHLOcU2XEjAQ6spAj6cPy0SBE7t7p5I3xWNNvgaZ55zya62
         KzTA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@googlemail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=j1r3HPzG;
       spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of postmaster@mail-sor-f69.google.com designates 209.85.220.69 as permitted sender) smtp.helo=mail-sor-f69.google.com;
       dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=googlemail.com
Return-Path: <>
Received: from mail-sor-f69.google.com (mail-sor-f69.google.com. [209.85.220.69])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id y7sor5000075lji.14.2020.06.08.03.53.29
        for <me.gmail@gmail.com>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Mon, 08 Jun 2020 03:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of postmaster@mail-sor-f69.google.com designates 209.85.220.69 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.69;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@googlemail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=j1r3HPzG;
       spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of postmaster@mail-sor-f69.google.com designates 209.85.220.69 as permitted sender) smtp.helo=mail-sor-f69.google.com;
       dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=googlemail.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20161025;
        h=to:auto-submitted:message-id:date:from:subject:references
         :in-reply-to;
        bh=c6vvSLmZOwM43j9TNAePnFK4iS4jrb75dBgJkEWX5G8=;
        b=j1r3HPzG+pQh79L+d8rIUBjnAHySOE+DeIZ/OwiWJp/6F1N3F2jF1MoPUJGxLuvVmP
         sAddZhJ/k0TA5LHZX8cnSS+Ey5rOYVET/tgtcXP9KocLtKzHonpDGnve3Jeog8QjjmfN
         UAFE3YYnQpje3jv18+IgU7Ha9MSsFCb5DctGzrV8BP7c8wFcOfNVLOmdTnqVH9OJove/
         fIWKitSpdvjaujAdCpKMltOfR+If6PHKi7jOAa+0eANPXRIKgli8Cyd4L968X742ErRl
         y3hMZLFy1QgtMI7VFRnYGOvxdi2TwBQ4mKK077Apxgke3UkpUp9AGro1xc7fD2al0inR
         vV9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:to:auto-submitted:message-id:date:from:subject
         :references:in-reply-to;
        bh=c6vvSLmZOwM43j9TNAePnFK4iS4jrb75dBgJkEWX5G8=;
        b=BnfnjpM2PrGwGSUPE1Np9KWPQDuBY6/b3jsZWrp5iyFNwvACn/aNeL3Os0e4Zig+1F
         jQSef4Dgs4g+eGCNhjiwmWFwAngykKR2NoW9+0pch4gwOxctieGgmC7brOKFUHOi/oOR
         k1rUzpF7JFxzgA261PKjLBciAbA3ssXMex3udOllwkneXCe5dkwyX2BJy+Ps+4DyEoaN
         5kXZGk+iV96InJGJXidWvRpgeZdNVkxVTmd7TPhEr58QfFOR77Q7OqYvVn1rdXIrS6Z7
         pSUq4QUYGpgjnIcpWY+CzAGR9eXoMPI50Wfj4PqkDzwz+nFr1KBdz71BjHzbBDkZ/z8f
         HwtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PwqFalgcxPnqHkeptOPBl1cDaiQVlxJ5XDB2ISoSYuWx7gHjd s6QObY6+PWbaKfzMkyTDpnO3rkIcPgIp7kSoBieLTg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9yHZBq2bIMJxdMTH7OaolKIg3CHy34/AT+UQiOx7Dt+idvJBGP93jhbiZ23sLM4H8Lwe4PtZCJ81WJT5PyVFLrvWxj3+1ecc=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4da:: with SMTP id r26mr7166790ljm.28.1591613608989;
        Mon, 08 Jun 2020 03:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/report; boundary="000000000000c88c7c05a7906b0e"; report-type=delivery-status
To: me.gmail@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a2e:b4da:: with SMTP id r26mr4652523ljm.28; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 03:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <>
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
Message-ID: <5ede18a8.1c69fb81.2b0f8.728b.GMR@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 03:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
References: <CAEOBTBop6JWJZb_Fgx7vXUU84oMc_yPOacCoGGhOnatgKMArEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEOBTBop6JWJZb_Fgx7vXUU84oMc_yPOacCoGGhOnatgKMArEg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Failed-Recipients: me-plusnet@me-plusnet.me.uk

--000000000000c88c7c05a7906b0e
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000c8913c05a7906b14"

--000000000000c8913c05a7906b14
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8914a05a7906b15"

--000000000000c8914a05a7906b15
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"


** Message not delivered **

There was a problem delivering your message to me-plusnet@me-plusnet.me.uk. See the technical details below.



The response from the remote server was:
552 Spam Message Rejected

--000000000000c8914a05a7906b15
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"


<html>
<head>
<style>
* {
font-family:Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="email-wrapper" style="padding-top:32px;background-color:#ffffff;"><tbody>
<tr><td>
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tbody>
<tr><td style="max-width:560px;padding:24px 24px 32px;background-color:#fafafa;border:1px solid #e0e0e0;border-radius:2px">
<img style="padding:0 24px 16px 0;float:left" width=72 height=72 alt="Error Icon" src="cid:icon.png">
<table style="min-width:272px;padding-top:8px"><tbody>
<tr><td><h2 style="font-size:20px;color:#212121;font-weight:bold;margin:0">
Message not delivered
</h2></td></tr>
<tr><td style="padding-top:20px;color:#757575;font-size:16px;font-weight:normal;text-align:left">
There was a problem delivering your message to <a style='color:#212121;text-decoration:none'><b>me-plusnet@me-plusnet.me.uk</b></a>. See the technical details below.
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
<tr style="border:none;background-color:#fff;font-size:12.8px;width:90%">
<td align="left" style="padding:48px 10px">
The response from the remote server was:<br/>
<p style="font-family:monospace">
552 Spam Message Rejected
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</body>
</html>

--000000000000c8914a05a7906b15--
--000000000000c8913c05a7906b14
Content-Type: image/png; name="icon.png"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="icon.png"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <icon.png>


--000000000000c8913c05a7906b14--
--000000000000c88c7c05a7906b0e
Content-Type: message/delivery-status


--000000000000c88c7c05a7906b0e
Content-Type: message/rfc822

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=FtVc6GZIIIdAQR0eWxxhJNE5MIF6gR/daMmIANQWuJg=;
        b=j6aPoIOmZ4pfVBGfT6Ny4FjpVnyaTdBMJjUqnvw9zQ6hRofLeV3lvhuX7RaHxbPDdK
         pjha3U0yDCnAjPcbbcW9/iso29IsiLbLxzbkEVNBhgtdBdq/iD/+aof285EMTLeeZBjG
         uycK7CCRiRDQ2ctg+YbdKlaXlItnoub0t7hpFN2eqsYnt/WJyt8vf65batBx1y394JLy
         d9bWaA39hRZyTs/IDr71BADGn2oRXKUJ6ansLthHhIq8O+R44UV6lSSzPPq4/spESwvw
         4xlmqgrzZfmq9oxXQOgzl/9jJmotq6+JehuFUIKVOeTyPHTGc2AtOmUiVF5m7znIzW2Y
         kREw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=FtVc6GZIIIdAQR0eWxxhJNE5MIF6gR/daMmIANQWuJg=;
        b=MepdAESD/XMJgUASONT15Q6w3ECflNQzOGt6QC9I9Q5y03QC17ixLO1BcdsEiOoqUI
         1f8nfWO6s3AXXiUWdgSClsifEJnoN0IcSbsCyxpVgTSNmFyOXhEg2pJM/ZJO9PT4PAUL
         8tRP8NeUP7DfGsmwid2wZBEryGdHOcrAZNcBKdHIFwrIe1aPy5rTx/W50EUon3Xqp0k1
         Lx2/iGzPoJ+2/kHOlKTF0spw/GPfmIFYv2Po7KyB9Iv1M7pv798W4//RpZ1sWq65dnKf
         3iSGS9NDJyd1qZqniJ/ihqNLpQdnezXuOo9nI4Bh9sw/OOBf2aoj2hQkwo/aoWE2w308
         m/kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VEIO8u85zRFREFcFQU+8+vADSfs4u+8Uro5n6OI3X8sLj1xzs nTUTiMT/PdhlHoWX6107WX5uhUEAjpo9cF3KPwe49V7y
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCdiSjA5au19W74DtL9+JC4lIn6NuTUlTbovSF8RkZylggahAt2pec4C16gBg7iPTd9gDWWCMdbC1w+zS+kpA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4da:: with SMTP id r26mr7166700ljm.28.1591613606065; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 03:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Kevin J <me.gmail@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:53:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEOBTBop6JWJZb_Fgx7vXUU84oMc_yPOacCoGGhOnatgKMArEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Test URLs
To: me-plusnet@me-plusnet.me.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009bf9ff05a7906bb2"

--0000000000009bf9ff05a7906bb2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

https://www.booksforlife.today

https://unearthingthetruth.info

https://booksforlife.today/unsubscribe.html

--0000000000009bf9ff05a7906bb2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a href=3D"https:/=
/www.booksforlife.today/" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:10.5pt=
;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(200,30,110);background-image:initia=
l;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:ini=
tial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://www.booksfo=
rlife.today</span></a><span></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a href=3D"https://unearthingthetruth.info/" target=
=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;co=
lor:rgb(200,30,110);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;ba=
ckground-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;b=
ackground-clip:initial">https://unearthingthetruth.info</span></a><span></s=
pan></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a href=3D"https://booksforlife.today/unsubscribe.ht=
ml" target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,san=
s-serif;color:rgb(200,30,110);background-image:initial;background-position:=
initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin=
:initial;background-clip:initial">https://booksforlife.today/unsubscribe.ht=
ml</span></a><span></span></p></div></div>

--0000000000009bf9ff05a7906bb2--

--000000000000c88c7c05a7906b0e--

 

@JW is this one for you please?

Superusers are not staff, but they do have a direct line of communication into the business in order to raise issues, concerns and feedback from the community.

apage
Hooked
Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-06-2020

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Thanks for that. However it's not just emails from gmail that are affected. My business email address, arnoldpage@booksforlife.today, is serviced by NetNerd, another webhosting company, and it was an email from that address (with the links) that was rejected by the recipient's PlusNet email client. Nothing to do with gmail. Furthermore, when I sent the same email to the spam-checking website from my gmail account it scored it 10/10 spam free.

Tags (3)
JW
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 314
Thanks: 100
Fixes: 24
Registered: ‎09-11-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

I've had someone pull out the relevant logs, using the sender and recipient in your rejection message. Once it's been reviewed we'll be able to provide an update.

 Jon W
 Plusnet
Townman
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 20,141
Thanks: 8,212
Fixes: 104
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Hi @apage 

"Nothing to do with gmail"

Well given that the URLs present no issue when sent from three other regimes, it is something to do with Gmail, at least in part.  Now that there is a clear profile on the issue, that it is reproduceable and has scope, I am sure that the cause will be easier to identify.  If it were no for the fact that you stated that you had a failure when sending from Gmail, then the issue might not have been profiled, given that my testing from elsewhere did not give rise to a failure.

It was only because I could not reproduce the error with 3 different email services, that I considered "Is this yet another Gmail centric issue?" and thus ran another test from a Gmail account**.  We have encountered a few of those over the last two years.  One should not put faith into it not being a Gmail issue just because Google is so big.

**Note we have seen divergent behaviour in the past between free Gmail accounts and subscribed for Gmail accounts.

Superusers are not staff, but they do have a direct line of communication into the business in order to raise issues, concerns and feedback from the community.

JW
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 314
Thanks: 100
Fixes: 24
Registered: ‎09-11-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

I've just had an update back on this. The rejection is based on message fingerprinting. So that they can check for clashes and look to reset this, the support team have asked for a full copy of the original message, in RFC822 format. This needs to be the copy that would be in the sent folder in the originating email client.

 Jon W
 Plusnet
Townman
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 20,141
Thanks: 8,212
Fixes: 104
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

@JW 

I have sent that via PM. The email was sent from the Gmail web interface.

@apage 

My test message generated the same profile, so there is no need for you to do anything at the moment.

Superusers are not staff, but they do have a direct line of communication into the business in order to raise issues, concerns and feedback from the community.

apage
Hooked
Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-06-2020

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Thanks. Someone else had a similar issue 2 years ago which you got involved with.

https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-SMTP-server-incorrectly-rejecting-outgoing-email-as-spam...

Townman
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 20,141
Thanks: 8,212
Fixes: 104
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

It might have been a similar error code, but it was not a similar issue.  That one was specifically the URL as it failed regardless of the email source.

This issue is (so far) not thought to be the URLs themselves but something to do with the way Gmail (and your other provider) is doing something with them.  I have sent a number of different test emails (in plain text) from Gmail containing...

  1. just one of the URLs in turn - they all succeed
  2. all three URLs - fails
  3. the two website URLs - fails
  4. the two books for life URLs - succeeds
  5. blog and unsubscribe - fails
  6. ... for the avoidance of doubt; again the blog URL on its own - succeeds
  7. all three addresses (omitting 'https://') - succeeds

I conclude that it is the combination of the blog URL in conjunction with one of the other two, when sent from Gmail which is giving rise to the issue.  The tech team have enough information now to raise this with the spam platform providers.

 

On a side note - your website looks good and some of the content is very interesting - particularly the item on dwindling attendance.  I like the no-nonsense style!

Superusers are not staff, but they do have a direct line of communication into the business in order to raise issues, concerns and feedback from the community.

apage
Hooked
Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-06-2020

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Thanks for the unexpected compliments! The technical issue really is complicated!

JW
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 314
Thanks: 100
Fixes: 24
Registered: ‎09-11-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Fix

As an update on this, the fingerprints have been adjusted so the emails should now be correctly delivered as desired.

 Jon W
 Plusnet
apage
Hooked
Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-06-2020

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

Wonderful. A test email with all the links arrived safely in my Plusnet mailbox. A great relief. Thank you very much.

Townman
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 20,141
Thanks: 8,212
Fixes: 104
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

@JW 

Is there an explanation for the profile of the failure please?

Superusers are not staff, but they do have a direct line of communication into the business in order to raise issues, concerns and feedback from the community.

JW
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 314
Thanks: 100
Fixes: 24
Registered: ‎09-11-2007

Re: Emails sent to Plusnet accounts rejected as spam when they include a link to a website.

The only information I have is that there was a fingerprint clash on message content. So something in the message looked like something in messages that had been marked as spam. That's why the examples were needed to investigate further and tune the fingerprints.

 Jon W
 Plusnet