Mail delivery to recipients taking 5hrs plus

[#1]

Hi all, 

Just a brief update on IMT-2206 - we are still looking into this and working on it in a Testing Environment at the moment. 

Once we've got a confirmed fix we will update this thread. 

Thanks to everyone for being patient whilst we've been working on this. 

All the best 

[#2]

Hmmm interesting!!

How is Plusnet going to fix a Google failing ... short of implementing SPF?

[#3]

As someone who has elderly parents (who are plus net customers) who rely on email to keep in touch with friends & family and are suffering from this problem, I really hope that Plusnet and Gmail can work together to sort it out sooner rather than later.

[#4]

Any update on this incident/topic?

[#5]

Sorry for the delay, we're currently working on a fix and I'll update as soon as we have more information.

I appreciate it's taken some time and we do appreciate your patience.

[#6]

As well as delays delivering to gmail accounts I also have emails that I send to gmail accounts that are never being received (they go into my Outlook email Sent Box immediately). As I also have a gmail account which is also set up in my Outlook email Client I sent a few test emails.

I sent one Friday evening at 22:28, it arrived just over 1.5 hours later at a 4 minutes past midnight ( the header information is below)

I sent one Saturday morning at 11:35, subject title Test:11:35) , that one has not yet arrived (Sunday 12:22)

I sent on Sunday Morning at 11:32, that arrived shortly after at 11:47.

Friday Evening email Head information:

Delivered-To: <redacted>@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a0c:e60d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z13-v6csp400838qvm;
        Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPyuqAg5954GeYdWv1wb/NGhuavmOeEfLHvgEnQ3uMIZn570LoqZxzBQx3F8KLABOOcdvFAf
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9693:: with SMTP id n19-v6mr7717674plp.282.1533942264162;
        Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1533942264; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=DaaGe1uceoYjDrpkVc65o6Vec+nEYyWt+a2++jW8iJdP4Hxx07Px4jJXTco5jCsXkD
         Aq+q+3oP1y8dABaFws/neoaDQoH7sJv1T1isQBfzbUeIp7nlkbRtzDv0xsLiBuy2ZViy
         48oVBcjnozl6q6RZk+BP1JdhfinwSkSnzEMXJfJLDp2cKeFbR6REEwiAUrCD/kXuUqjx
         iTfvcMYVdBDFQrSH1j4qYqXPWLGpGPgcBcjy7W243ixvE8UHh0hoPiu74p7zbzU2ijV/
         txkvhUwovrxWOIkGpPvIi+NZcHKsU6Jav7+abLU42JKhsWP3wfQvmmbZU1oP7nq1BPbI
         bYSg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject
         :to:from:arc-authentication-results;
        bh=F/SVgTUUW0ut55DiHQFlR7onq2MEehrmatxP675Dtv0=;
        b=FzzuhGyhgchLjLZD+nrJqSaEqA79RLHOAHrlxd2/Qn6DXfFK11/7sv+1HjuW8BtqKL
         puLA1jaTrz/5tXB25IDdc4NAaALpyRHM5Dx1kDQQjVSDWNEprRrqg+v9/ZT1M2poqen+
         1wR/2zy4Re/+W5wn6Ug8un0qMUI+pFASE8ljHOseSFbC2Uph/lmCicPq+2oyJm3PnJToS
         LGTIi0cdtynUSH4BgwsAsf6MqthZORg2xJ6Hh/2hL1GM4YxT+m4kII1viKeaLTXzfYJx
         qnZNYO2E3aD2v3EayRoWlU6NozxteJcVLCxbAQ5IeMdvi6RmPKc+HAFRAa0ycxj7m9Fi
         y7oQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
       spf=neutral (google.com: 84.93.230.250 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of <redacted>.plus.com) smtp.mailfrom=<redacted>.plus.com
Return-Path: <<redacted>.plus.com>
Received: from avasout05.plus.net (avasout05.plus.net. [84.93.230.250])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o3-v6si8590810pld.281.2018.08.10.16.04.22
        for <<redacted>@gmail.com>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 84.93.230.250 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of <redacted>.plus.com) client-ip=84.93.230.250;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=neutral (google.com: 84.93.230.250 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of <redacted>.plus.com) smtp.mailfrom=<redacted>.plus.com
Received: from <redacted> ([<redacted>])
 by smtp with ESMTP
 id oEwnfaAYm05ijoEwofOYWZ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:27:50 +0100
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=QJJGuDDL c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=Q62ca8rPf8DjVi6Zq4Wqsg==:117 a=Q62ca8rPf8DjVi6Zq4Wqsg==:17
 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=tQGhkSUO9cYtgadkqNwA:9
 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8
 a=zCOvTRUlKqzhfid7IWsA:9 a=fCl9OvUZB0dNVMJA:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10
 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10
From: "<redacted>" <<redacted>.plus.com>
To: <<redacted>@gmail.com>
Subject: Test
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:27:50 +0100
Message-ID: <001201d430f0$fe45d260$fad17720$@<redacted>.plus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01D430F9.600A3A60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdQw8P0colDFC3KIQk6D3CGo0kajcg==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 180810-8, 10/08/2018), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfGLg7zwHja3kPmo8ZqmYoQk6D5HVRp+qI/2pV/yfNLb6ULEQAZHo1vvVWoxVqnvjKN/Xma4V1a7PQyn5Epc1OKe6U9m+NUBwoF816iduQS1iBJ0kk/Ek
 foDNUlAWi1TgdnYNJXfGaCT2JzeuADpJK0GQsJbnxFKrZPlE6QzaoEHq
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 180810-8, 10/08/2018), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

[#7]

All messages I've sent to a gmail address have eventually turned up. The longest delay I've experienced is 1 day, 20 hours so still time for the "missing" message to arrive.

I've found delay time is variable, later messages can arrive before those sent earlier.

[#8]

Your, right it turned up just after midnight so that was 1 day 13 hours.

Sent 2018-08-11 11:35

Rcvd 2018-08-13 00:09

Delivered-To: <redacted>@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a0c:e60d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z13-v6csp2161561qvm;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPyOSAtlotJ4PefYbJrDIvc5RN1hK3DDBLMRDvm2Tk+ItgzUjx/9A9H+dlffzB2NL6E0/2Av
X-Received: by 2002:a62:5613:: with SMTP id k19-v6mr16517049pfb.212.1534115311100;
        Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1534115311; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=PXHmkMOpkM3YP0f/c1dPwz1xl+ECCqPE9ZajPdPcxr7a/CaeZhbTh58IQu3NKTdwsi
         eqcj0KqoswWF9TbJ8TM7ZozXMztUzBqzU1MPin/IAqNgG6moVUUZzryxEow3p6GXmp4n
         OCYgdW37RgBFmyqHLxKR4c6KF+zLh8/8NVDFmCxY2OnD/cxzYwdwpdyPDI7xY8FDD9bK
         O4jf6Wajdv+0mDF8Z/eRWJXxUahDQedA3Wn3qMEMHW0PLjRW75QVf329Wkaovnsw1M7C
         2TlMpvodnaUnO+qkVf24baI0hNFnpjivXqpMxZPoKiq1OiyIdVNlFTpYh/uwIE8ueSRI
         S+uw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject
         :to:from:arc-authentication-results;
        bh=q8Zmrdw+IMRd5RleMderslsildYFnM5OLvHJaKJx8xg=;
        b=WHH6mL5ZIDWDLi2r+ec2ZHWWeBW7yZH1lYw39R4k50uzO7VudM/e+80urS70z0bIED
         qdTrptUsHXjQzNgrOtcjDMMOZPEl/Oykta3a04t02tn42OKFsQymt3rdqBdpyQ4ljRF7
         cN3YDWmR3Q9LBjSXZ0IGEWjMLHsGLrk5yvMMUVCaZTUg+J0fS/i8nyArM79DvjaW6QcM
         apcY6uo53vvpmC2kWg/yq3e3k9a0pDNsZpmOvhbrgk7WlV3tf+3ng2Ff70pSYpDRDt3g
         wGg4uhW9IumJAL3SWtUEZofrzSpxoImUcB6xso++7wzv+w+aMPseiSY46UjdWqA//Sdp
         FBog==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
       spf=neutral (google.com: 212.159.14.17 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of <redacted>.plus.com) smtp.mailfrom=<redacted>.plus.com
Return-Path: <<redacted>.plus.com>
Received: from avasout02.plus.net (avasout02.plus.net. [212.159.14.17])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f21-v6si15793668pgk.418.2018.08.12.16.08.29
        for <<redacted>@gmail.com>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 212.159.14.17 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of <redacted>.plus.com) client-ip=212.159.14.17;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=neutral (google.com: 212.159.14.17 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of <redacted>.plus.com) smtp.mailfrom=<redacted>.plus.com
Received: from <redacted> ([<redacted>])
 by smtp with ESMTP
 id oRFJfDZNXEt9noRFKf5jia; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:35:46 +0100
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=Esb8UxUA c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=Q62ca8rPf8DjVi6Zq4Wqsg==:117 a=Q62ca8rPf8DjVi6Zq4Wqsg==:17
 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=tQGhkSUO9cYtgadkqNwA:9
 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8
 a=zCOvTRUlKqzhfid7IWsA:9 a=fCl9OvUZB0dNVMJA:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10
 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10
From: "<redacted>" <<redacted>.plus.com>
To: <<redacted>@gmail.com>
Subject: Test 11:35
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:35:47 +0100
Message-ID: <002601d4315f$11bb78e0$35326aa0$@<redacted>.plus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0027_01D43167.737FE0E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdQxXxCTA6Bb7MDBQay1EKCXcysZ0g==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 180811-0, 11/08/2018), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfLsty+SV0OdeoAg7H/toVdiCM2r2tgWn9tX7NZGu524zdKgRK0/sIAar9CSkcLkpR3FG3isegcWFdVc492ZFVhTWrRVspsDcJHwDJTfRp2GODuixgCQY
 N9s9LZBTSBrEpuYPhdn8t30Aay4deuVPMNCK4jt9TieSZC4qH8/30vkr
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 180812-4, 12/08/2018), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

[#9]

Hi all.

We think we've worked out what we need to do to fix this, but due to the way our internal change process works it's going to take a bit of time to implement.

Apologies for the continued inconvenience caused.

[#10]

To be pedantic, Plusnet believe that they have a mitigation which ought to prevent Gmail from taking the wrong actions.  If the measures deliver a resolution, they will verify that Gmail are indeed taking inappropriate actions, by their email servers acting "aggressively" where they ought to be acting neutrally.

[#11]

I too have elderly parents who rely on Plusnet email . I use gmail so communication  from  them currently is quicker by Royal Mail!

Please could you give an honest time scale for the fix.  I can set them up with a Gmail account if necessary but if the Plusnet/gmail problem will be fixed in the next 2 or 3 days I won't bother.

[#12]

I'm an elderly parent with daughters who both use gmail addresses and for some time now, my emails to them sometimes take over 2 days to get there or do not arrive in chronological order. As one of my daughters lives in Central America and the other in Scotland, it's very frustrating  to not have a rapid email service. I hope PlusNet will resolve it soon.

[#13]

I am looking into this issue for my Mother, who is the Plusnet customer.

 Can the admins please give some detail on what the actual problem is.  There are lots of theories and claims from non support staff, but I see little evidence to support their claims.  The responses from the staff give no detail at all.

Moderator's note by Mike (Mav): Post released from Spam Filter.

[#14]

Everyone suffering from this issue needs to be asking questions of Google...

1. Why are you (Google) delaying the receipt of emails sent from @Username.plus.net?
2. Why are you only doing this in respect of the receiving @gmail.com address being a free addresses and processing emails as normal if the receiving address is a paid for @gmail.com address?
3. Why if a Plusnet user sends an email to @gmail.com using their own @mydomain.co.uk (or whatever) email / domain does is the email received immediately, even though the email is sent by the same SMTP servers?
4. Is Google playing silly games in the absence of @Username.plue.net having an SPF record, rather than following the correct behaviour which is "Accept" as per http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax

Result	Explanation	Intended action
None	The domain does not have an SPF record or the SPF record does not evaluate to a result	accept

Given that using the same Plusnet email servers...

1. Emails sent from Plusnet email addresses to BUSINESS @gmail.com addresses, regardless of which @domain-name is used, are received immediately
2. Emails sent for a hosted domain to both BUSINESS and FREE @gmail.com addresses are received immediately

… it is difficult to understand how the Plusnet service can be responsible for emails sent from @Username.plus.com to FREE @gmail.com addresses being delayed … unless Google is behaving incorrectly in the absence of an OPTIONAL SPF specification by treating *.plus.com as a single bulk sender.  Whatever the Google approach is wrong and inconsistent.

[#15]

Why has this post been cut to leave only the first line of the original post of SlyOne? I received in my email the full text which is somehow different to the moderator's summary.