I don't know if you had noticed that cox.net was specifically mentioned in
that article, but in an ambiguous way. Thought it was interesting anyway.
I hope it's resolved.

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
"We lived for days on nothing but food and water."
-- W.C. Fields



I had suggested that. Person I was working with was just a little
reluctant to listen. I appreciate your explanation. I did suggest
that he format the return address exactly as his Outlook return address
was. What I got was a rather odd address.

Thanks for the confirmation.

John McKee


-----Original message-----
From: "Dennis Lovelady" iseries@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:55:52 -0500
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'" midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Email oddity

My $0.18 says that this is the issue:

by a host with no rDNS <<

The host that sent that message presents itself as an IP address, but
reverse DNS (translation from IP address to DNS) is not possible.
Many ISPs
will reject such mail since most spam has that attribute. It is
likely that
Cox is one of those. This was the rule that VZ finally relaxed a few
years
ago, that had stopped that US site's mail from being received.

Here's a research starter for you:
http://www.jaguarpc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11512

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
"Some see the problem in every opportunity, some see the opportunity
in
every problem."
-- Kevin Cowling


Message that >is< sent and received by Cox is produced by Outlook.
Message sent via SNDEMAIL, which forwards to the email server, is
just
typed in.

Below is a sample. I have obfuscated part of the domain, and IP
addresses. Nothing more.

While doing that, I saw in the last line:

-------------------------------------------------- 0.14
MISSING_MID
Missing Message-Id: header 0.10 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted
network
by a host with no rDNS 0.50 BSF_SC5_MJ1963 Custom Rule MJ1963

Yet, I received it. Which implies my ISP is more tolerant than Cox.
This was produced by the SENDEMAIL command and the API that it
calls.
Is that message stating what is actually wrong? And, if so, how is
it
fixed? Is this in the SENDEMAIL processing, or the main Windows
email
server?

John McKee


Return-Path: <S1015362@xxxxxxx>
Received: from X.X.net (X.X.net [1.1.1.1])X.X.net (IceWarp
10.0.7)
with ESMTP id UXC81216 for <JMMCKEE@xxxxx>; Wed, 11 May 2011
13:43:16 -
0500
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1305139395-285b40870001-7i1fjv
Received: from S1015362.X.org ([1.1.1.1]) by X.X.net with
ESMTP
id
NHJ2TLgfYcD9PD4p for <JMMCKEE@xxxxx>; Wed, 11 May 2011 13:43:16 -
0500
(CDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: S1015362@xxxxxxx
X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 1.1.1.1
Sender: S1015362@xxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:42:51 -0500
From: X_X_ER_CENTER <S1015362@xxxxxxx> [+]
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JMMCKEE@xxxxx <JMMCKEE@xxxxx> [+]
Subject: PHI!!
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--PART.BOUNDARY.1"
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: PHI!!
X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[68.93.9.131]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1305139395
X-Barracuda-URL: http://24.249.116.47:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at X.net
X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5145 1.0000 0.7500
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 1.49
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=1.49 using per-user scores of
TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=3.0
tests=BSF_SC5_MJ1963, MISSING_MID, RDNS_NONE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version
3.2.2.63446Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ----
----
-------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.14
MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header 0.10 RDNS_NONE Delivered to
trusted network by a host with no rDNS 0.50 BSF_SC5_MJ1963 Custom
Rule
MJ1963
Message-Id: <20110511184319.4BB851894396@xxxxxxx>
-----Original message-----
From: Dennis iseries@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:36:48 -0500
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Email oddity

How is the message being created? Is it possible to share the
headers of that message (sans any personal details) with the group?

I've seen a couple of issues like this. One was at a large US
Government site, that was black-listed by Verizon. Not pretty, and
only a policy change at Verizon cleared it up. I don't remember
the
details behind the isssue - had something to do with sender domain
or
sending server's CNAME record, I think, though. Anyway, the
apparent
effect was that any mail that server sent could be received, except
by
VZ customers.

The other is DNS/Routing, though this is pretty rare. A DNS at
one
installation had invalid information for a large recipient server,
like
Cox.

Might want to check the spam rules and any mailbox options at the
Cox
site too.

Good luck.

"jmmckee" <jmmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I was asked, to ask, if anybody has seen this.

Guy here attempts to send an email from the i to his personal
email
account at cox.net. Never gets it. He can have the i send to
my
personal email and all is well. He can send an email from
Outlook
to
his Cox account, and that goes through as well.

I have suggested to him that Cox may be doing address
verification,
and
that what he has chosen for a sender name does not match,
exactly,
the
registered name in the mail server. The i is NOT the mail
server.

Any ideas as to why a mail generated from Outlook would go
through
to
Cox, but not from the i?

MAILTOOL would be nice, but not likely an option.

John McKee

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].