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

[#1]

As you are plainly unaware, although it has been stated, the company has referred this to the Incident Management Team, but it is not a simple 'press a button and it'll all go away' issue.

Do you have extensive knowledge of the challenges involved in sorting this Google/Microsoft instigated debacle?

[#2]

There’s far too much presumption around here.

The super users have done a great deal with the business to progress matters.  To suggest that is not happening is offensive of the time and effort they dedicate to this space.  It’s all too easy to sit on the side and throw rocks into the pond.  That helps no one.

There is a deal of unhelpful argument over what is the problem and exceptions from people who do not have the first clue of how to run mail systems.

There is a country mile difference between running @Gmail.com or @outlook.com compared to @you.somewhere.com the whole scope of the imposed measures is fundamentally different.  For the former, the requirement is indeed simple - configurable at the top level domain.  For the latter there needs to be a point fix for every individual @you thus not trivial.

The issue remains to be Microsoft’s scoping of a single bulk sender spanning every individual Plusnet email user is fundamentally flawed.  Mitigation is being investigated.

Point of information for those writing to MPs - Plusnet might have 1.5m broadband users, but those also using email are significantly fewer.  Would not want any to mislead their MP.

[#3]

I do not disagree with anything that has been said here. I stand by my point that I am disappointed that PN did not see this coming.

I accept it may take a while to fix as I can appreciate there is a risk of breaking things and such. But that is no excuse for not providing updates. If the fix is months away then tell us. My point is simply that it is really frustrating to have radio silence on any eta or time line for a fix and instead to be repeatedly told it is Microsoft fault

[#4]

Oh dear TOWNMAN. I'm not inflaming anything here, I would say you are TBH. I'm just asking for an update on what PN are doing. You seem to think that is a crime. If you have nothing useful to add then please don't respond to my posts. 

[#5]

Thanks for all the responses by the Superusers so far on this 👍

I appreciate that it's because of a somewhat overzealous change that Microsoft have made (categorising an ISP as a bulk emailer), that it's with the Incident team, that mitigation is being investigated, and that it's not a change that should be rushed.

What might help lower the temperature around here, is if we had a commitment from the business, that a mitigation will be implemented (even if what that mitigation is, and when it will be implemented, can't be shared yet).

[#6]

Hi Mark,

Welcome to the forums and thank you for the reflective first post.

There has been a deal of work going on in this space, the detail of which is not known to the SUs, but be assured the results of our testing have been fed back to the business.  Including those ran last week and this afternoon.

There is emerging evidence that Microsoft's rules are far from clear; today's orthogonal tests conducted by the SUs have shown that even with DKIM and SPF and (apparently) DMARC configured, email does not deliver cleanly to MS mailboxes, but instead arrives in the junk folder.

I know that the suggested brief is being worked on...

[#7]

Hi All,

We’re aware of the issue currently affecting some Plusnet customers when sending emails to Microsoft-owned domains such as Hotmail, Live, and MSN. 

We understand how frustrating this can be and want to reassure you that our teams are actively investigating the issue. Early indications suggest the problem may be related to Microsoft’s email systems, and we are working closely with them to identify and resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

We appreciate your patience and will provide updates as soon as more information becomes available.

Thanks to everyone who has taken time to offer support in this thread, particularly @Townman @MisterW @Dan_the_Van and @jab1

James

[#8]

@James_B Many thanks for the most informative response yet, and for PN's efforts behind the scenes to resolve this issue.  We accept it's not an easy fix, and that the problem is not PN's fault.

However...

Really there should have been better communication about this six or seven days ago.  PN left it to the superusers to fend off the questions and issues raised by users.  And as they themselves had no information, all they could do was point out (correctly) that it was not PN's fault.

Unfortunately, in the absence of further information, that came across as "PN don't care about their users".  Hopefully that's not true, but if you read some of the earlier posts in the thread, it's clear that both ordinary users and superusers got very frustrated with each other.  It shows.

It's only in the last day or two that the superusers were able to say that PN were aware of the problem and seeking some sort of fix.

At one time, PN would give regular updates about this sort of problem on their service status page.  Keeping us informed would clearly help prevent such frustration boiling over.  But the latest post I can find is from September 2022.

[#9]

@Tim-J 

From a SU perspective we were in contact with the business on this within hours after the issue emerged.  That though does not equate to having a detailed position to communicate beyond what was done last Thursday by @plusnettony - there’s a formal incident raised and it’s under investigation.

Until there’s clarity of the mitigation or resolution options, there is simply nothing more to be communicated.  There are potential end points, but paths to them need to be planned with care.

Having run major IT systems (government and corporate sectors) for over 35 years I have a clear understanding of the challenges of making urgent changes to complex systems.  Sadly such is not visible the majority around here, for whom acting with caution does not compute.

Thank you for your balanced reflections.

[#10]

So Plusnet is part of BT.  Why are PN not leveraging that connection by escalation to BT seniors to get involved.  This problem has been ariound for over a week - enough time for a root cause analysis to have been carried out and a fix found.

[#11]

@madswitcher With respect, I don't think you quite understand the complexity of the situation which has been caused - as I have said previously, this is not a 'flick a switch to sort' scenario.

[#12]

Will there be some sort of announcement to users when the problem is resolved?

[#13]

I would imagine the  obvious answer to that would be 'yes', wouldn't you?

[#14]

That would be a probable likelihood.

[#15]

@James_B
Thank you for the post which has now appeared on the service status page as I suggested.