From address doesn't meet the authentication requirements defined for the sender

[#1]

Just go with Andrews and Arnold for phone and stick with PN for connection, my wife is just as attached to our landline, and it costs us less that £2.50 a month with calls at 2p a min, you'll find any ISP bundled voip solution considerably more than that.

[#2]

---

@plusnettony wrote:

...don't have an answer for that. 

---

Disappointing but as expected.

I suspect you also can't answer this more generic question, is this problem going to be fixed, for sure, definitely?

Or are PN (soon to be Greenby) just going to offer an ever increasingly limited / dying email service, as more and more mail servers follow MS's lead and similarly start to bounce PN (soon to be Greenby) email messages?

[#3]

I also have this problem.  Tried to message two friends with hotmail addresses today and both bounced, with this explanation from Microsoft.  On this occasion I was able to send using a gmail account, but that will not always be possible. 

Dreading having to move everything to a new email.  We have stayed with plusnet for many years in order to still have the same email, but if this is not fixed by Plusnet  we will have no choice.

[#4]

@JudithPS77 As Microsoft have caused the  problem, it is not really PNs to solve, but no doubt they are investigating possible mitigations/solutions.

[#5]

I will be honest and say that I think it is unhelpful to keep blaming Microsoft here. Microsoft published what they were about to do back in April, and it would seem PN (not to mention others) missed the significance of this announcement.

You can debate the merits of SPF versus other methods - but from the perspective of the 99% of normal plusnet users, and indeed outlook users, SPF filtering, I think, is a positive, as it further reduces the chance of spam etc. - and having seen family members fall for such scams, I am generally supportive of such attempts.

I am not particularly encouraged by the fact one reason being given for PN not doing this previously was that some people were sending emails using their PN domain via someone else's server. Whilst I am sure this is useful in some cases - it screams "risk" to me - and I'm sure if you said to Microsoft that oh I'm sorry we don't use SPF as some of our users wont be able to send from an alternative server their response would be "well yes, that's exactly the sort of thing we want to stop".

With regards the forcing user to move to Microsoft - I think this is the way it's going, and I have been encouraging my parents to do exactly this, as in my view, they (and others) can offer vastly superior services - which is not PlusNet's fault by the way, just is what it is. Makes it very helpful in the future as it frees you up to have broadband supplied by whoever can offer the best service in your area. Perhaps one option (which I think I'm going to suggest to my parents) is to allow legacy users a simple forwarding option...

(PS - i write this really liking PlusNet, always very happy - I have however moved to EE for the fact they'll let me keep my home phone for negligible extra cost).

[#6]

@rjenkins123 

The Microsoft “announcement” was far from clear.  It is not clear that the announcement sought to imply that each individual’s subdomain would be treated as one and the same as everyone else’s for the purpose of volume counting.  If such were the intention then 5k is incredibly low.

What is your experience in running mail services?  Having BOTH SPF and DKIM is very unusual as it is over kill.

[#7]

@rjenkins123  I would completely disagree with you, it is entirely Microsoft's totally unnecessary restrictions on emails from all  Plusnet subdomains classed as bulk postings is totally ridiculous. This seems to be the trigger that has caused this problem.😠

[#8]

Apologies, my post was not meant to sound as aggresive as it came across. I do appreciate the help and sorry if it came across wrong. I was simply trying to say that I don't think it's helpful to "blame" Microsoft and expect MS to solve it. I think this needs solving at the PN side, and FAST!

My point was less related to the bulk sender issue but the lack of SPF - within Microsoft's post was a comment that the bulk senders was the "start" and not the end and that they would be rolling this out to all domains regardless of size - and for the reasons I said I'm inclined to think this isn't unreasonable.  Regardless of the subdomain issue, I would think it's not unreasonable that email companies could've foreseen this issue - many of them will simply be using username@host.com type addresses which would be picked up as bulk senders rather quicker than PN with their subdomains. Hence I'm a bit disappointed that this slipped the net as it's causing many people quite a lot of pain.

[#9]

If you go to https://www.learndmarc.com/ it can run a full diagnostic and report that the sender (Plusnet) has provided no DMARK entry, which is now required by MS.

[#10]

@Richard_R correct BUT emails are not sent from address@plus.com , they are sent from address@<accountname>.plus.com . The problem is that Microsoft are treating all the emails as being from the plus.com domain and thus 'marking' it as a bulk sender. This was not anticipated, and since Plusnet meets the normal requirements of SPF and/or DKIM for a non-bulk sender, it should not have been a problem.

[#11]

Thanks for explaining, I suspected it had to be a bit more complicated or it would have been sorted by now. Meanwhile we have to live with it. Using a different SMTP server (Yahoo) seems to work.

[#12]

Can you explain what you mean by "Using a different SMTP server (Yahoo) seems to work." ?

[#13]

Using a Yahoo SMTP server to send as (from) you@youraccount.plus.com to Microsoft mailboxes works?

Really?  That breaks all of the required rules; no SPF; no DKIM; and no DMARC.

If things are as you state and as I’ve understood your claim … that is both odd and points away from the current understanding of what is the issue.

[#14]

If it is not supposed to work please don't tell MS! But it does - anyway it has not come back and there has been no "delivery failed" message. I use Linux with kmail, and kmail allows you to set up more than one sending account. The server needs a password to authenticate it. Seems to work with gmail as well. (As a further complication, I use an alias that points to my Plusnet address - "Reply to" points to the alias but "From" must point to the Plusnet address or gmail rejects it.)

This reply is for ericgdparker as well, but sorry if it is confusing - I realise that the more mainline email clients may hide some of the internal settings. And I am at the limit of my understanding, I simply tried it and it worked.

[#15]

@Richard_R  Just to be sure, you are saying that if you replace the Plusnet server (relay.plus.net) with the Yahoo one (smtp.mail.yahoo.com) mail sent to @live/@outlook/@hotmail addresses do not bounce?

If so, what password must be supplied, since you also mentioned:

...The server needs a password to authenticate it...

---