Strange Incoming e-mail Issue - multiple copies being received
So ... any news on this ? Is anything actually happening at all ? Or is the issue perhaps just being effectively ignored until such time as the relevant server data is no longer available ?
Unfortunately, previous PN comments stated that server data is only retained for a week ... and as the messages are now more than 7 days old, it's probably not looking good now is it 
If it is a case of no relevant action has been taken despite posts and PMs then it's apparently too late now meaning it's another month wasted and probably a further month before another attempt will even be possible. Happy days ...
Try again time. Another message received and it's situation normal, 3 copies via mx.core 1 copy via mx.avasin
Relevant headers for the message received via mx.avasin follow:
[quote]
> Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:40:11 +0100
> Received: from [84.93.230.237] (helo=avasin-ptp-005.plus.net)
> by inmx-peh-005.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1od9sg-0002YA-W0
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:40:11 +0100
> Received: from server17.robohosting.solutions ([216.250.248.239])
> by Plusnet Cloudmark Gateway with ESMTP
> id d9sVoPVfczl5kd9sYopnFR; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:40:02 +0100
> Message-Id: <E1od9sU-0005DC-Rb@server17.robohosting.solutions>
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:39:58 +0100
[/quote]
Headers for the 3 messages via mx.core are also available if needed.
Please refer to previous posts for full details and explanation. It needs to be established what exactly mx.avasin has been up to and whether any additional delivery attempts were made but were rejected or subsequently silently deleted rather than being delivered to me. This obviously needs to be done whilst the relevant server data is available i.e. BEFORE logs etc. are deleted after around a week.
Please don't keep apparently ignoring this problem just because it's no doubt a bit of a PITA !
Hi Mike, apologies firstly for the very delayed response.
I genuinely don't know what more we can do as our NetOps team have already advised that they can't identify the root cause and have suggested for you to enable spam filtering as a possible way to resolve.
Is it just one company which you're receiving duplicate emails from? While I appreciate the desire to get to the bottom of an issue, at this stage is it best to simply delete the duplicate email(s) if or when you receive it? 
I'm more than happy however to carry on the investigation, so I've asked @bobpullen if he has any ideas on how to. 
I understand the 'reluctance' to do anything much ... but from my PoV it's potentially symptomatic of a more serious problem, whether that's with PN or the sender still remains to be seen. However, only PN can supply relevant data to help identify which end of the transfer is not particularly happy. I still believe that it's the PN end. I still believe that we've been here, done this and bought the t-shirt before, around the time that the 'new' mail system was introduced.
OK ... so what exactly IS the fundamental difference between the basic SMTP function of two MXs then ? I am aware that mx.core is/was Ye Olde Mail System and mx.avasin is the last new system that kinda replaced it plus postini/ironport/whatever but that's about all that I think I know. Surely PN use the same basic software in both cases rather than something bespoke or highly complex/customised ? It's not like SMTP is something shiny and new it's been around almost since internet day 1 plus it's well specified and probably unchanged in donkey's years !
The latest incoming mail from my supplier appears to prove my previous experiences various and my serious concerns with using the PN filtering. The now 'usual' 3 copies of their latest message were received via mx.core but nothing whatsoever was received via mx.avasin on this occasion. It was presumably rejected or silently deleted after being accepted This is precisely why I cannot and will not use PN filtering on my main A/C because I know for a fact, and have proven many times, that I will end up losing too much wanted mail for no particularly good or identifiable reason. It's been well proven over and over again ever since the new mail system first came into being. Why do you think I actually have multiple A/Cs receiving duplicate messages from numerous senders via both MXs ? The problems with mysteriously missing mail has been proven to death historically ! The problem with multiple copies has also been seen before but previously it appeared to come and go for no obvious reasons.
Also, please note that exactly the same problem with multiple copies being received is now being experienced with messages from Royal Mail. A simple confirmation from them today resulted in three copies being received via mx.core and as is now usual, the 2nd was sent almost immediately with the 3rd around an hour later. No doubt if these messages were being received via mx.avasin they would also randomly disappear.
Sorry, forgot to add relevant headers from RM messages:
[quote]
> Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:50:12 +0100
> Received: from [217.64.233.52] (helo=mailfw4.rmg-ebusiness.com)
> by inmx-peh-010.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1okSNY-000Fke-6o
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:50:12 +0100
> Received: from [10.45.76.68] (port=37532 helo=RMG02APP001PRD)
> by mailfw4.rmg-ebusiness.com with esmtp (Exim 4.96)
> (envelope-from <noreply@rmg-ebusiness.com>)
> id 1okSMS-0001up-2q
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com;
> Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:49:04 +0100
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:49:04 +0100 (BST)
> Message-ID: <206883426.77760.1666021744876@smtp-vip>
[/quote]
[quote]
> Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:50:12 +0100
> Received: from [217.64.233.52] (helo=mailfw4.rmg-ebusiness.com)
> by inmx-ptp-008.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1okSNY-000EWw-5e
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:50:12 +0100
> Received: from [10.45.76.68] (port=37532 helo=RMG02APP001PRD)
> by mailfw4.rmg-ebusiness.com with esmtp (Exim 4.96)
> (envelope-from <noreply@rmg-ebusiness.com>)
> id 1okSMS-0001up-2q
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com;
> Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:49:04 +0100
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:49:04 +0100 (BST)
> Message-ID: <206883426.77760.1666021744876@smtp-vip>
[/quote]
[quote]
> Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:07:44 +0100
> Received: from [217.64.233.52] (helo=mailfw4.rmg-ebusiness.com)
> by inmx-peh-005.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1okSeW-00015Q-Pe
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:07:44 +0100
> Received: from [10.45.76.68] (port=37532 helo=RMG02APP001PRD)
> by mailfw4.rmg-ebusiness.com with esmtp (Exim 4.96)
> (envelope-from <noreply@rmg-ebusiness.com>)
> id 1okSMS-0001up-2q
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com;
> Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:49:04 +0100
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:49:04 +0100 (BST)
> Message-ID: <206883426.77760.1666021744876@smtp-vip>
[/quote]
Exactly the same messages from the same company inevitably sent at much the same time using exactly the same hardware/software and service provider to me via the 2 available MXs.
Latest message: 3 copies via mx.core and 0 copies via mx.avasin
Well, I reckon this just about proves once again the apparent connection between the observed issues with the 2 MXs. It also indicates that the most likely cause is probably PN attempting some kind of sender verification ... and NOT being remotely sensible, honest or even consistent about it. However, given the length of time that this appears to have been going on for, it would seem that perhaps no one actually knows exactly what it is that PN are/were trying to achieve and/or how they're trying to do it.
Answers on a postcard as to what PN are actually trying/failing to achieve here and why PN believe that it is apparently acceptable to randomly and silently reject/delete customers' requested and therefore wanted mail and/or generally play silly b*ggers with another company's business by preventing them from reliably contacting their customers when they have been specifically requested to do so.
Given the sender details and relevant headers previously provided for several example messages and from 2 completely different sources ... what EXACTLY is PNs perceived 'problem' with these senders or these particular messages that in some way 'justifies' the rather dubious actions apparently being taken here ?
Starting to get more than a bit silly now
Another message from the original company noted in this thread, 3 copies received via mx.core but 0 copies received via mx.avasin
Relevant headers from the first copy of the message
[quote]
> Received: from [216.250.248.239] (helo=server17.robohosting.solutions)
> by inmx-peh-001.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1omzZb-0005Fn-8n
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:41:07 +0100
> Received: from totaluk by server17.robohosting.solutions with local (Exim 4.95)
> (envelope-from <totaluk@server17.robohosting.solutions>)
> id 1omzZa-00010F-FY
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com;
> Mon, 24 Oct 2022 11:41:06 -0400
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:41:06 +0100
> Message-Id: <E1omzZa-00010F-FY@server17.robohosting.solutions>
[/quote]
Two important messages from a different company that I've used many times before over many years, 2/3 copies received via mx.core and presumably these would also most likely have been rejected or silently deleted after receipt had they been sent to me via mx.avasin
Relevant headers from the first copy of the first message
[quote]
> Received: from [78.137.112.15] (helo=web.kenable.co.uk)
> by inmx-peh-008.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1onFtN-000Fej-Eq
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:06:37 +0100
> Received: from admintest1 (helo=www.kenable.co.uk)
> by web.kenable.co.uk with local-smtp (Exim 4.95)
> (envelope-from <sales@kenable.co.uk>)
> id 1onFtJ-0002Mf-QT
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com;
> Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:06:33 +0100
> Message-ID: <20221025090633.863579813.swift@www.kenable.co.uk>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:06:33 +0100
[/quote]
Relevant headers from the first copy of the second message
[quote]
> Received: from [78.137.112.15] (helo=web.kenable.co.uk)
> by inmx-ptp-001.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1onFtL-0000xx-Ti
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:06:36 +0100
> Received: from admintest1 (helo=www.kenable.co.uk)
> by web.kenable.co.uk with local-smtp (Exim 4.95)
> (envelope-from <sales@kenable.co.uk>)
> id 1onFtL-0002Mx-HQ
> for Me@MyAccount.plus.com;
> Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:06:35 +0100
> Message-ID: <20221025090635.224039362.swift@www.kenable.co.uk>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:06:35 +0100
[/quote]
Why do PN think that this is somehow acceptable ?
Why does this stupid problem appear to have suddenly returned once again after not actually being seen (by me at least) for donkey's years ?
What EXACTLY is PN's alleged 'problem' with these senders, this content or some other identifiable elements contained within the particular messages from the particular companies that have been noted in this thread so far ?