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

[#1]

@solodchin Point of order/information : the mail service on PN is, and always has been, a free 'add-on'.

[#2]

@jab1
Not when I joined <mumble> years ago. It was advertised as a complete package, and they used to be good at it. But more recently they've decided to ditch everything but broadband connections. That makes them the same as all their competitors, and when they've offloaded emails there's no reason for us to stay loyal.

[#3]

Also no reason for PN not to be absorbed by EE & the PN operation / brand shuttered.

[#4]

@Tim-J The email service HAS always been an add-on. In the days when PN was established as a small 'niche' provider, almost all ISPs offered an email service, these days many of them are ditching them, or transferring them to outside providers- as PN are currently doing.

I recall this subject being raised not long after I joined PN (and this forum), and that was the position then. I honestly can't remember the exact conversation.

The fact it is not listed as a separate charge on invoices, and is no longer offered to new  customers, should give a clue - it may have been 'in the package', but was not charged for separately.

[#5]

@PhilipHeyes    Unless or until BT Group PLC decide not to offer a 'no frills' broadband-only service, that is unlikely.

[#6]

Not true - when I joined 23 years ago it was most definitely part of the service and an email account (xxxxx@xxxxx.plus.com)  was automatically created and was managed through the member centre.

There wasn't a separate charge but it was part of the overall package advertised.

These problem are causing far too much stress and the thought of telling 100's of contacts, banks, suppliers etc. of an address change is giving me even more stress.

We know these problems come from Microsoft changes but as most email providers seem to be coping with them, why can't PN. Added to the fact that PN were informed of these changes in advance and chose to ignore them tells its own story.

I know who I hold responsible despite all the moans and groans about MS.

[#7]

@JaAm wrote “as most email providers seem to be coping with them, why can't PN.”

As I understand it, the fundamental difficulty for PN is the existence of a subdomain element in the standard email address e.g. xxxxx@subdomain.plus.com. However, if other providers have this structure (I’ve been assured that there are some but I don’t know who) and have found a way to live with Microsoft’s changes (i.e. of avoiding DKIM = Fail and having email servers blocked), then why can’t Plusnet?

[#8]

I fear you do not understand the issues.  If one can send to a@outlook.com and b@outlook.com separately passing SPF, DKIM and DMARC checks then surely that proves there is nothing wrong with the Plusnet configuration.

If on sending to both in a single email, Microsoft changes their mind and decides the DKIM check is a failure, tell me what’s changed here on the Plusnet side?

The only “issue” related to subdomains is defining the scope of MICROSOFT determination of the “same” sender over which to aggregate the bulk sender 5k per day threshold.

This issue needs Microsoft to get off the pot and …

[#9]

@Townman Everything, according to some.

[#10]

@Townman The only “issue” related to subdomains is defining the scope of MICROSOFT determination of the “same” sender over which to aggregate the bulk sender 5k per day threshold.

That's one issue, and I agree it's something MS need to be persuaded to address.  It would be good to have some feedback about PN's efforts to persuade them.  Unfortunately you seem to be as in the dark as we are.

The other issue is that being wrongly considered a bulk sender isn't the whole story.  That just imposes additional requirements, which genuine bulk senders seem to be able to achieve. Why can't Plusnet?

[#11]

(RE: has PN's email service always been "just an add-on"?)

@jab1 The fact it is not listed as a separate charge on invoices [....] should give a clue - it may have been 'in the package', but was not charged for separately.

Exactly.  It was in the package we paid for, and it was advertised as such.  Not a separate add-on service, 

I edited "...and is no longer offered to new customers".  That is also the point being made.  PN's offering has changed.  PN now considers email to be an add-on for existing customers.  It didn't previously.

[#12]

The decision has not been made by Plusnet - it has been made by the BT Consumer Division's higher-ups, who have decided that the PN brand is to be used as a bare-bones internet access provider.

[#13]

@Townman 

Of course I don’t know the answer to your question (although I made an obvious suggestion in #424) but I would hope that by now Plusnet do know. Also, I would hope that by now they understand why Plain Text emails don’t get rejected.

Which other email providers, to your knowledge, are struggling with DKIM failures (Googling as you suggested in #643 didn’t give me any answers)? Do they have a subdomain structure and are they experiencing the behaviour in your example i.e. can send to one MS-related email address but not more than one?

I fully accept that Microsoft’s changes have caused the problem but if other providers have got around it, or haven’t experienced any issues, what is different in their setup?

[#14]

@jab1 

That is understood.  I'm just pointing out that there has been a change in PN's attitude.  Email has not always been just an add-on.

[#15]

---

@JaAm wrote:

Not true - when I joined 23 years ago it was most definitely part of the service and an email account (xxxxx@xxxxx.plus.com)  was automatically created and was managed through the member centre.

---

23 years ago the world was a different place and email wasn't a central plank for important daily communications.

Presumably you have not been paying out of contract rates for the last 21 years so have been regularly taking out a new contract and so replacing the original?

Can you find any mention of providing email in your current contract, or is it, for example, a contract offering broadband and phone?