email problem - PlusNet please check...

Hi,
I've been haveing a problem exchanging emails with the company that I recently bought my new PC from and this is making it difficult for them to provide me with the support I want. Is there any reason for cyberpowersystems.co.uk to be blocked by plusnet? Or can anyone think of any other reason why I might be having a problem?

The only time I have sucessfully received an email from them was when I gave them my bigfoot.com email address, however I have been having major reliability problems with them and am therefore in the final throes of migrating away from them. It would therefore be useful if I could get the plusnet/cyberpower issues sorted out.

Don't know if it makes a difference, but my plusnet email address is in the free-online.co.uk domain.

Thanks,
Rob

Could you post sanitised headers for an email you received via bigfoot? The main information required is the IP of the mail server that cyberpowersystems use. I suspect it might be a Namesco mail server and I wonder if mail through this is being delayed for similar reasons that mail from 1and1 servers is (with a fix due to roll out this week).

Have cyberpowersystems received any bounce messages from mail sent to you?

Having a Free-Online mail address should not matter as far as this problem is concerned.

David

Headers as follows:-

Return-path: <******@cyberpowersystem.co.uk>
Envelope-to: ******@******.free-online.co.uk
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:59:19 +0000
Received: from [212.159.7.38] (helo=mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net)
by fhw-sunmxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1LHIeN-0003ZE-30
for ******@******.free-online.co.uk; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:59:19 +0000
Authentication-Results: mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=205.178.146.55;
receiver=mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net;
envelope-from="******@cyberpowersystem.co.uk";
x-sender="&&&&&&@cyberpowersystem.co.uk";
x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=205.178.146.55;
receiver=mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net;
envelope-from="******@cyberpowersystem.co.uk";
x-sender="******@cyberpowersystem.co.uk";
x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=205.178.146.55;
receiver=mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net;
envelope-from="******@cyberpowersystem.co.uk";
x-sender="[email protected]";
x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-SBRS: 2.7
X-SLBL-Result: SAFE-LISTED
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5477"; a="10075088"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,295,1228089600";
d="scan'208,217";a="10075088"
Received: from omr5.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.55])
by mx.ptn-ipin03.plus.net with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2008 13:59:18 +0000
Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr5.mgt.netsol.com [10.49.6.68])
by omr5.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id mBTDxHLF025461
for <******@******.free-online.co.uk>; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:59:17 -0500
Received: (qmail 6223 invoked by uid 78); 29 Dec 2008 13:59:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ******) (******@[email protected])
by ns-omr5.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP; 29 Dec 2008 13:59:16 -0000
Message-ID: <EB55B991DD2943918ABD6CAACB9CA11E@******>
From: "******" <******@cyberpowersystem.co.uk>
To: "Rob Allen" <******@******.free-online.co.uk>
References: <FEF7418724F246E987E623B1D54CEA36@******>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:59:19 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009F_01C969BD.A50D56A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-pn-pstn: Spam 0
Subject: Re: ****** account - please activate

I seem to have mis-recollected regarding the bigfoot email, I can find no evidence that that ever worked either - but then bigfoot has its own problems. This is from the only email from cyberpower that I have successfully received. As far as I can tell they seem to receive my emails OK. As you can see, this problem has been going on for a few months now and I would appreciate any assistance.

Thanks,
Rob

That was sent to the Plusnet IronPort servers from a networksolutionsemail.com mail server and all their servers have a "good" reputation in SenderBase. So no reason to expect mail to be refused. It is possible that accepted messages were silently deleted if regarded as obvious spam - if not already set this way I suggest changing your Discard Obvious Spam setting to Off (Spam tab within Manage My Mail within Member Centre Email Settings).

Another alternative is that the messages are being scored as Spam and moved to your Spam folder (assuming that is what you have selected in the Spam tab). Have you checked there? However I note the headers you posted show the address is whitelisted which should mean they are delivered provided they don't go to a catch-all address.

It's rather a drastic solution but you could try turning off spam protection. That can take up to 48 hours to become fully effective because DSN changes need to promulgate around the Internet.

David

I have created an alias specifically to receive emails from cyberpower. I have added cyberpowersystem.co.uk to my white list. I always get spam marked as [SPAM] and moved to my inbox for manual deletion - I'm paranoid like that. Although I have discard obvious spam set to ON, according to my understanding of the rules that shouldn't affect these particular emails. I also have the spam filter set to the least aggressive level.
Not sure I like the idea of turning all spam protection off just to test out a theory. Is there any other way of determining where the problem could lie?
Rob

I recommend turning Discard Obvious Spam off, so that no messages could be silently deleted. I use that setting, though found it made no difference, I rarely receive spam messages (and to the best of my knowledge don't lose anything either - apart from one (genuine message) sent via a dodgy relay where I have no complaint that IronPort refused the message).

As far as your problem is concerned I think you've taken appropriate steps to ensure delivery; perhaps a staff member might be able to suggest a way forward.

David

Hi Rob,

I've just answered your post about the same thing over on our Community Site although David seems to have covered the main points in this thread.

Rgds,