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

[#1]

@Townman I never mentioned a problem with the PlusNet platform and I totally accept that the main problem is with Microsoft. However I referred to the service. PN supply a mail service which in some respects is not working as a result of Microsoft's actions. I am not looking at this from a technical position but from the non-technical customers' point of view and some of them are not getting the service for which they pay. I do not need 'evidence' for that and those customers don't care about where the fault actually lies - all they know is that their messages are not getting through.

I have a very good friend in her eighties who suffered from this very problem. The situation was exacerbated by finding out, without any warning, that PN were not going to support digital voice or indeed, the telephone service at all. A service for which she was currently paying.  Her 93 year old husband would not cope with mobile telephones so she was forced to leave PlusNet and went through the process of informing some 150 or so contacts about her new email address.

I suspect that my friend's situation is only the tip of the iceberg.

[#2]

That was temporary advice not a solution.

[#3]

That was referring to townsman's last.

[#4]

@Townman: Do you have evidence to offer which supports your suggestion that this is a problem with the Plusnet mail platform … and not Microsoft’s?  The reports of variable DKIM processing in Microsoft space is legion.

However, in the last week or two, people have been reporting an additional problem.  E.g. message #637.  It seems that at least some Plusnet servers are now on a blocklist.  It's reported that this affects emails even with just a single addressee, and it seems unrelated to the DKIM issue.

AIUI, this is a problem which all mass market email providers suffer from time to time, including Plusnet.  The cause will be a rogue customer sending spam.  The usual remedy is for the sending provider to show the receiving provider that they have taken action against the offender, and ask for the block to be lifted.

Is Plusnet doing anything?  Oh for the days when they used to report what action they were taking.

[#5]

@Townman wrote:  

The standing advice from the business is to send to individual addressees … that might be a tad inconvenient, but hardly “pain”.

I'm sorry, but you are attemptintg to defend the indefensible.  It is a 'pain' when you are communicating with a committee and it is useful to use the 'reply all' facility to keep everybody in the loop!

From the tone of your response I wonder if Plusnet is accepting any responsibility for the problem.  Could somebody from the business (eg  @James_B , @JordanTA ) please confirm that the issue is still being actively pursued with Microsoft and what actions are being taken to effect a resolution.

The rate of progress is glacial - this thread was started 3 months ago.  The lack of updates from the business is shocking and Plusnet is not providing an acceptable email service.

[#6]

Perhaps Plusnet have sold Greeny a box of rotting apples and there is no intention to address any of the email issues.

If that is the case, Greenby are going the find it hard to convert accounts to fee paying customers
and in two years of less the end of this email platform may come very quickly.

Come to think about it perhaps Greenby are already hosting the SMTP servers,
who knows in this new world of Plusnet's radio silence and Greenby's brick wall of AI bots.

[#7]

@Townman re #645

As I have reported previously (e.g. #599), I have been able to get round the DKIM problem when sending an email to multiple addressees by using Plain Text mode. I would agree that, on its own, that is “a tad inconvenient but hardly pain”. The pain that I was referring to is the cumulative effect of that plus:

1. Email bouncing because it has been routed via a blocked server.
2. Email bouncing because it was sent too far past the hour mark.
3. Not getting any response from Plusnet, which equates to banging one’s head against a brick wall and is severely painful.

It’s getting to the point where I am starting to wonder whether Plusnet have given up.

[#8]

@abitpedantic 

They have not given up ... work continues.

[#9]

@Townman 

You say “work continues” but on the other hand you have said before that you don’t know what is actually going on. There have been assurances in the past that SUs have not been sworn to silence but perhaps Plusnet staff have been? In #650, two such people are specifically referenced, it would be good to hear from one of them. It is now 2 months to the day since Sending emails to Microsoft-owned domains such as ... - Plusnet Community was last updated!

[#10]

We know that work is on going, but we do not know the detail of that work.

Requests have been made for formal comms.

[#11]

@Townman Requests have been made for formal comms.

But ignored.

I'm sorry you're getting it in the neck here.  I appreciate it's not your fault, but you're all we've got.

[#12]

I completely agree, plus net have massively dropped an important ball here, these are real problems being suffered by real people and have real consequences. Please upgrade this issue until ALL your technical staff are working on it rather than spending any money on advertising, pay them overtime!

Regards

[#13]

@stuboy666 I seriously doubt technical staff will be working on advertising - that is not their job. It also relies on Microsoft, and their willingness - or otherwise - to cooperate.

[#14]

When faced with a vacuum of communications is only safe to assume your supplier or customer or ISP

is not about to do what you had hoped or expected.

[#15]

@PhilipHeyes  Totally agree. I've said it before but most users are not technical and many are paying for a service they are not receiving. Whether it is Microsoft's fault, Plusnet's Fault or the Jolly Green Giant that is causing the problem is entirely irrelevant. Many people are paying good money for a service they are not receiving.

I am not a PlusNet customer and neither are any of my aquaintenances but, and a big but, many of them used to be.