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

[#1]

@wphil 

I very much doubt that creating a new mailbox will have any benefit whatsoever.

The standing mitigation for the issue of this thread is to...

• Send emails to Microsoft addressees individually
• Send emails from webmail

That said long non-delivery is not the problem under discussion here - this issue has a very clear immediate NDR response.

Have you / the addressee checked the spam folder?

[#2]

@Townman re #756

"Microsoft treats all sub-domains to be part of the root domain for the purposes of counting bulk senders, not just for Plusnet but everywhere as in *.sch.uk / *.nhs.uk / *.gov.uk etc".

So, are .gov.uk etc users experiencing large numbers of emails being rejected due to DKIM failures like Plusnet users are? If so, I would have thought it would be big news. Or are their subdomains 'approved' bulk senders in some way whereas Plusnet's subdomains are not supposed to be?

[#3]

@abitpedantic 

No idea on that point.

I sought only to challenge the suggested notion that PlusNet's sub-domain structure for email addresses is somehow unique, odd-ball, flawed and not seen elsewhere.  It patiently is a standard widely deployed model.

[#4]

Has any one seen any evidence of the free Microsoft email account holders being aware their emails from various sources are being constantly rejected & raising any questions or complaints ?

[#5]

@Townman 

I don't consider unique, odd ball and not seen elsewhere to be problems per se but of course I would be worried about flawed. Clearly employee@hugedepartment.gov.uk is a rather different animal from chap@home.plus.com so I would not be surprised if the former is ok while the latter (e.g. me) isn't.

It continues to look like there is no other significant provider i.e. one that has any serious clout, experiencing the DKIM failure issues that Plusnet users are having.

[#6]

Mailgun is not an insignificant player.

Mailgun serves a user base of over 225,000 businesses, ranging from small businesses to large enterprises, including notable tech companies, Mailgun. These users are typically developers and businesses that need to send, track, and optimize email for various purposes like transactional emails, marketing campaigns, and application notifications, Mailgun.

That’s business, not users.

[#7]

If Plusnet are working with Mailgun to get a result then that's great but it would be a bit of a coincidence given that they were first mentioned on here only a few hours ago. The trouble is Plusnet won't give any indication of what they are doing.

However, Enix (Greenby) are being paid by Plusnet to take over the hosting of Plusnet email services. I don't know the terms of the deal of course but it could be that there is very little financial incentive for either party to solve the problem. 

[#8]

@abitpedantic  Who said anything about Plusnet working with Mailgun, I think you've jumped the gun there. As far I can see all we know is that the the business was notified of the mailgun report by @MisterW in msg#770. No more than that.

[#9]

I wasn’t asserting that Plusnet was actually working with Mailgun, although for all we know they could be. The Superusers have always emphasised that they don’t know what’s going on in the business so @MisterW  passing information to Plusnet doesn’t mean that the latter didn’t already know of Mailgun’s interest in the DKIM-failure issue. In fact, I’d be disappointed to say the least if they didn’t already know.

To be clear, I was just expressing the hope that Plusnet had teamed up with a major player so that there was some chance of our problems being resolved such that we regain an acceptable email service soon.

[#10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov

.gov.uk should be equated to .gov as a 'TLD' (I think it may be). Otherwise no other country on the globe could have a .gov (or equivalent). I'd be sure that they same applied to (our) .nhs and .police (you couldn't go to nominet and get a domain assignment under those unless via very official channels - hopefully).

I remember .bank being floated as an idea for a TLD a number of years back (for a number of reasons, primarily to secure online stuff)

[#11]

@PhilipHeyes re #681 et seq.

How is your list of blocked servers doing?

I have run a check on the 7 avasout servers and 2 of them (peh-002 and ptp-004) appear on the s5h blacklist but that is all. In particular, none of the servers that you have listed as being blocked by Microsoft appeared on any lists. I don’t know how comprehensive the search was or who uses s5h but is it too much to hope that the situation is improving, at least regarding blacklisting?

[#12]

The Plusnet SPF entry lists 13 avasout servers.

The previous list is comprised of the server names / IPs recovered just from our rejected emails.

Large email operators clearly have their own white and black lists that may be used
as permissions or sanctions on IPs / ISPs / domains and individual emails involved in SPAM campaigns.

DKIM=Fail ( Falsely ) is looking like a symptom of that sanction behaviour as we can see the PN DKIM is present :

https://dnschecker.org/dkim-record-checker.php?query=plus.com&selector=042019

[#13]

Luckily, I haven't needed to send an email to a Microsoft-related address for two weeks (since post #696 in fact). I was really asking whether you had noticed any reduction recently in rejections due to avasout servers being blacklisted.

Of course, I'd be delighted for anyone to respond with a view on that particular question.

[#14]

No improvement.

We are speaking to people and saying we can not email to your free Microsoft email all messages are rejected.

[#15]

That’s not strictly true though.  It’s you can’t run your business operation over PlusNET’s residential email service the way it suits you.

• You can send emails to your trustees individually 
• You can send emails as plain text