cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Bounce message tagged as Spam

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,095
Thanks: 428
Fixes: 21
Registered: 31-08-2007

Bounce message tagged as Spam

As a result of a typo when using webmail, I inadvertently got an address wrong.
The (sanitised) address should have been friend@tesco.net and I inadvertently typed a comma instead of a dot. So the system treated it as two recipients - <friend@tesco> and no2 as <net@plus.com> . No problem with that. However the 550 bounce message I got back for net@plus.com is below and got tagged Spam - very silly to say the least, especially as it's gone via ironport & not scored, except by PN as Spam 1 - sanitised version below.
Quote
Return-path: <>
Envelope-to: user@username.plus.com
Delivery-date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:34:53 +0000
Received: from [212.159.7.38] (helo=mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net)
  by fhw-sunmxcore04.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1LNGCC-0005TT-Nb
  for user@username.plus.com; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:34:52 +0000
Received: from localhost by mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net;
  15 Jan 2009 00:34:51 +0000
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:34:51 +0000
To: user@username.plus.com
From: "Mail Delivery System" <MAILER-DAEMON@mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="xFko.4O7gVwBYo.1BU8jF.1NxrV7F"
Message-ID: <E1LNGCC-0005TT-Nb@fhw-sunmxcore04.plus.net>
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: [-SPAM-] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
--xFko.4O7gVwBYo.1BU8jF.1NxrV7F
content-type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following message to <net@plus.com> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'SMTP REJECTED: Please redirect your mail=
to the plus.net domain'
--xFko.4O7gVwBYo.1BU8jF.1NxrV7F
content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net
Final-Recipient: rfc822;net@plus.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [84.92.0.115]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'SMTP REJECTED: Please redirect your mail to the plus.net domain' (delivery attempts: 0)
--xFko.4O7gVwBYo.1BU8jF.1NxrV7F
content-type: message/rfc822
Received: from pih-cgirelay03.plus.net ([212.159.0.97])
  by mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2009 00:34:51 +0000
Received: from pih-cgirelay03.plus.net ([212.159.0.97])
  by mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2009 00:34:51 +0000
Received: from [212.159.6.53] (helo=webmail.plus.net)
by pih-cgirelay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <user@username.plus.com>)
id 1LNGCA-0005un-Vv; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:34:51 +0000
Received: from 87.114.195.64
        (SquirrelMail authenticated user username+mailbox)
        by webmail.plus.net with HTTP;
        Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:34:20 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <15722.87.114.195.64.1231979660.squirrel@webmail.plus.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:34:20 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Send me some mail
From: "me" <user@username.plus.com>
To: friend@tesco,
net@plus.com
Reply-To: user@username.plus.com
User-Agent: SquirrelMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Hi friend,
The rest was 5 lines of plain text message.

--xFko.4O7gVwBYo.1BU8jF.1NxrV7F--

I got a correctly returned message 'Mail delivery failure: returning message to sender' - 'Unrouteable address' for the friend@tesco bit, which was not tagged.
6 REPLIES
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 12,801
Thanks: 634
Fixes: 62
Registered: 04-04-2007

Re: Bounce message tagged as Spam

Quote from: Anotherone
No problem with that. However the 550 bounce message I got back for net@plus.com is below and got tagged Spam - very silly to say the least, especially as it's gone via ironport & not scored, except by PN as Spam 1 - sanitised version below.

The original email was sent via our cgi-relay servers (webmail uses these instead of the normal relays). The cgi-relays passed the message onto the Ironports which didn't like the net@plus.com address and consequently rejected it.
Interesting one this because it only seems to happen when an email is sent to an @plus.com, @force.co.uk address etc. Notice the absence of IronPort headers:
Return-path: <>
Envelope-to: bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:23:02 +0000
Received: from [212.159.7.39] (helo=mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net)
  by fhw-sunmxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1LOsDe-0006MV-5q
  for bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:23:02 +0000
Received: from localhost by mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net;
  19 Jan 2009 11:23:01 +0000
Date: 19 Jan 2009 11:23:01 +0000
To: bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk
From: "Mail Delivery System" <MAILER-DAEMON@mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="10iSv.4ODGbHcVl.1ipjIl.4NSxbrG"
Message-ID: <E1LOsDe-0006MV-5q@fhw-sunmxcore02.plus.net>
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: [-SPAM-] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
--10iSv.4ODGbHcVl.1ipjIl.4NSxbrG
content-type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following message to <test@force9.co.uk> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'SMTP REJECTED: Please redirect your mail=
to the plus.net domain'
--10iSv.4ODGbHcVl.1ipjIl.4NSxbrG
content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net
Final-Recipient: rfc822;test@force9.co.uk
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [84.92.0.115]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'SMTP REJECTED: Please redirect your mail to the plus.net domain' (delivery attempts: 0)
--10iSv.4ODGbHcVl.1ipjIl.4NSxbrG
content-type: message/rfc822
Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.147])
  by mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2009 11:23:01 +0000
Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.147])
  by mx.ptn-ipin04.plus.net with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2009 11:23:01 +0000
Received: from [84.93.217.90]
by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1LOsDc-0001l2-St
for test@force9.co.uk; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:23:00 +0000
Message-ID: <497462A0.7050108@bobpullen.f9.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:23:12 +0000
From: Bob Pullen <bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: test@force9.co.uk
Subject: Testing
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Plusnet-Relay: 304a1f240c4391d976e6f090d66f1a05
testing NDR again
--10iSv.4ODGbHcVl.1ipjIl.4NSxbrG--

A failed delivery report to any other unroutable address contains the IronPort headers and seems to be OK:
Return-path: <>
Envelope-to: bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:20:31 +0000
Received: from [212.159.7.34] (helo=mx.ptn-ipin02.plus.net)
  by fhw-sunmxcore06.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1LOsBD-0002Mu-1P
  for bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:20:31 +0000
Authentication-Results: mx.ptn-ipin02.plus.net; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=212.159.14.148;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin02.plus.net;
  envelope-from="";
  x-sender="Mailer-Daemon@fhw-relay07.plus.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.159.14.148;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin02.plus.net;
  envelope-from="";
  x-sender="postmaster@fhw-relay07.plus.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=212.159.14.148;
  receiver=mx.ptn-ipin02.plus.net;
  envelope-from="";
  x-sender="postmaster@fhw-relay07.plus.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-SBRS: 2.9
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: At0CAC/xc0nUnw6UgWdsb2JhbACMdQGHEAEBCQsKBxMEvB+Fcw
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5499"; a="21750571"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,289,1231113600";
  d="scan'208";a="21750571"
Received: from fhw-relay07.plus.net ([212.159.14.148])
  by mx.ptn-ipin02.plus.net with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2009 11:20:29 +0000
Received:  by fhw-relay07.plus.net with local (Exim) id 1LOsBB-0006R4-V6
for bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:20:30 +0000
X-Failed-Recipients: invalid@sahdfjsghfjhagfjasfghsadjhfgsjkf.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@fhw-relay07.plus.net>
To: bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk
Message-Id: <E1LOsBB-0006R4-V6@fhw-relay07.plus.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:20:29 +0000
X-pn-pstn: Spam 0
Subject: Mail delivery failure: returning message to sender
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
  invalid@sahdfjsghfjhagfjasfghsadjhfgsjkf.com
    Unrouteable address
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk>
Received: from [84.93.217.90]
by fhw-relay07.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1LOsBB-0006PC-8L
for invalid@sahdfjsghfjhagfjasfghsadjhfgsjkf.com; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:20:29 +0000
Message-ID: <49746206.1040708@bobpullen.f9.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:20:38 +0000
From: Bob Pullen <bobpullen@bobpullen.f9.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: invalid@sahdfjsghfjhagfjasfghsadjhfgsjkf.com
Subject: testing NDR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Plusnet-Relay: 5374a97a51b2a42ae9eb11d5ac103144
This is a test.

I'll ask around and see if anybody can offer me their opinion as to why this is happening.

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Products Team
If I've been helpful then please give thanks ⤵

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,095
Thanks: 428
Fixes: 21
Registered: 31-08-2007

Re: Bounce message tagged as Spam

Good point that last one Bob, I should have spotted that difference in mine and commented. My unrouteable address message had the ironport headers.
Maybe the PN system is tagging the 550 as spam because it had no ironport headers and thinks its some sort of forgery.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 8,876
Thanks: 411
Fixes: 36
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: Bounce message tagged as Spam

This problem seems to have similarities with that reported for quarantine notifications on 13/12/2008. Though picked up by Plusnet before Christmas there has been no further feedback and posts on 13/01/2009 and today show it still happens.
David
David
Community Veteran
Posts: 19,095
Thanks: 428
Fixes: 21
Registered: 31-08-2007

Re: Bounce message tagged as Spam

I'd noticed that but didn't want to post in that thread in case it muddied either issue.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 8,876
Thanks: 411
Fixes: 36
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: Bounce message tagged as Spam

Though there are similarities in the description, insufficient information has been published on the other one to show whether it really is the same problem. So a separate topic was appropriate and remains so for the moment.
David
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 12,801
Thanks: 634
Fixes: 62
Registered: 04-04-2007

Re: Bounce message tagged as Spam

Quote from: Anotherone
Good point that last one Bob, I should have spotted that difference in mine and commented. My unrouteable address message had the ironport headers.
Maybe the PN system is tagging the 550 as spam because it had no ironport headers and thinks its some sort of forgery.

My post here applies to this problem too.

Bob Pullen
Plusnet Products Team
If I've been helpful then please give thanks ⤵