Did you ever hear back from them? I've had a little bit of response, but I
still have a queue full of emails which aren't moving. It kinda sucks for my
customers to have their emails hanging for days.
https://community.bt.com/t5/Email/BT-email-accounts-rejecting-emails-we-send-on-behalf-of-our
Summary from 25 July: three causes of deferral sending to
mx.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (btopenworld.com etc)
1) "421 Too many messages (1.5.6.1)" (after MAIL FROM)
2) server dropping connection (while sending RCPT TO)
3) "451 System policy engine error" (after end of DATA section)
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015
I have seen weird emails coming from that IP: 65.20.0.49
Anyone has a contact there?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Cedric Knight wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is anyone else seeing problems delivering to recipients
> @btinternet.com, @btopenworld.com and @talk21.com ? We've been seeing
> the following to
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015, at 05:23, Cedric Knight wrote:
> Plus I got a kind response from Steve postmas...@btinternet.com,
> suggesting any SPF record (eg softfail or neutral) would reduce number
> of SPF fails, or delays.
We have SPF records. The problem is that our customers can set up
sieve rules
On 2015-09-09 14:52, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015, at 05:23, Cedric Knight wrote:
>Plus I got a kind response from stevepostmas...@btinternet.com,
>suggesting any SPF record (eg softfail or neutral) would reduce number
>of SPF fails, or delays.
We have SPF records. The problem is
Best is to ensure in a clean forward that the DKIM signature does not get
broken. But yes forwarded emails should go via anti-spam filters too.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> We don't recommend doing that:
>
> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/175365
>
> If you are fo
> We don't recommend doing that:
>
> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/175365
>
> If you are forwarding mail, you'll inevitably forward spam, and you
> don't want your reputation to take a hit on that.
>
> Or, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Ok, just to confirm, does this mean you don
> On 10-Sep-2015, at 3:22 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> We have SPF records. The problem is that our customers can set up
> sieve rules to forward any mail at all, so we can't guarantee that SPF
> will always pass.
If you aren’t treating forwarded mail like it has leprosy, you really ought to.
> Segregating it onto its own IP which is clearly named - like
> forwarder.fastmail.fm - would be a very good idea.
FYI, we already do this.
I think Bron got a bit sidetracked into this, because the delays were
mostly our out "outgoing mail" IPs, not on our "forwarded mail" IPs.
--
Rob Mueller
