on 16-07-2021 06:10 PM - last edited on 16-07-2021 07:09 PM by Gondola
I run my own domain, and send email via Runbox. This works well escpet for messages to talktalk.net and tiscali.co.uk. A search of the internet and this forum suggests I am not alone.
This has been going on for months; if I am on any spam lists they are not timing out.
My SPF record appears to have the recommended value; it is: v=spf1 redirect=spf.runbox.com
Any help gratefully received!
A typical rejection message is:
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: host mx.talktalk.net [22.214.171.124] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 452 4.2.0 4Q41mKAPlEMTC4Q41mYoRP Content deferred (TT991): retry timeout exceeded
Reporting-MTA: dns; mailtransmit02.runbox Action: failed Final-Recipient: rfc822;email@example.com Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; mx.talktalk.net Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 452 4.2.0 4Q41mKAPlEMTC4Q41mYoRP Content deferred (TT991): retry timeout exceeded
on 11-08-2021 11:25 AM
That would account for the TT512 bounceback.
It's a timely reminder that TalkTalk are deleting email addresses that are not used by TalkTalk Consumer home broadband or MailPlus mail only subscriber customers.
So, if users have not unsubscribed from mailing lists in the 6 months before their addresses are deleted and those lists are not cleared of addresses that are undeliverable then the TalkTalk servers could deal with the sender as spam and hence the TT991 bounceback.
Good to know you're back in action and thanks for taking time out to give us your feedback.
on 11-08-2021 11:12 AM
A final (I hope!) update...
Some of the messages I was attempting to send were to discontinued addresses. The talktalk severs do not give an immediate undeliverable response to these. My domain then got put on a black list, so that all messages to talktalk users were rejected.
A period of silence from my server was sufficient to get removed from the black list, though I think I now need to be careful that any talktalk addresses I use are valid.
Thanks to Gondola and especially Ady for their assistance.
on 28-07-2021 07:27 AM
Hi erkavanagh, there's no information in your profile. If you're still having problems please send me a personal meessage with the sender, recipient date and time along with the total size of the mail message.
on 22-07-2021 09:42 PM
TT 991 is CloudMark spam protection kicking in and deferring the message for scanning. TT 512 is the server indicating undeliverable which, in this case, might be because recipients have marked mail as spam. But if you don't get an auto response very quickly from the test address then we have to assume that CloudMark has got your mail fingerprinted as unwanted spam for whatever reason.
Ady would need to raise a fault ticket and I'll make the request. He'll need some details like the recipient addresses, your sending domain address, time and date of the last fail and he'll ask for this by Community Personal Messaging.
on 22-07-2021 08:30 PM
The messages are mostly sent to two addresses: one talktalk.net and one tisacli.co.uk. Most of these messages are automatic reponses from my server (sent via runbox) when users update their bowling leagues on my site. Other users get their responses.
Another use case is a message to all (13) clubs in a bowling league - sent individually. One team uses a tiscali address which fails; all the others are OK.
Finally I have one personal correspondent on talktalk (or would have if I could get a message to her).
The responses are mostly TT991; a few are TT512. One recent failure omitted the Diagnostic-Code line altogether.
I sent a message to that test address 20 minutes ago - no response yet. A non-delivery message generally takes a couple of days to arrive.
All very mysterious!
on 22-07-2021 07:20 PM
on 22-07-2021 06:15 PM
Sadly the spf change has had no effect. Routine messages are still bouncing. I have also tried waht I hope was a sufficiently bland message which also failed. Actually I think all of my messages are bland, but that's obviously subjective.
Any further help appreciated!
on 19-07-2021 08:15 AM
on 17-07-2021 11:11 AM
Thanks Gondola for editing my post. I thought I'd removed all the identifying info, but must have missed some.
I will amend the SPF record as you suggest and report back.
Also thanks for jampherson's suggestion. The tool reported 93 OKs and one timeout (from NIXSPAM). I presume this means that server timed out, rather than a problem I should worry about.
on 16-07-2021 07:28 PM
I've edited your post to remove the email address revealed in the mailto link. But having been able to check that address I can confirm it is valid and active. I can also confirm that you're following runbox advice re the spf record, so no fault on you there and runbox.com doesn't come up on the normal blacklists.
However, the TT991 bounceback confirms that the incoming mail has triggered the spam detection and the mail has been deferred for scanning. That's not a permanent error but the scanning process has timed out and that is a permanent delivery fail.
Fully authenticated mail using SPF and DKIM and having a DMARC policy set up have the best chance of not being selected for spam scanning. But the TalkTalk check on inbound mail that's carried out by CloudMark is finding some issue with the authentication or content.
Try setting up a different form of SPF record.
v=spf1 include:spf.runbox.com -all as this might stand a better chance of being accepted. Checking that the actual sender is using one of the runbox specified IP addresses. And of course trying, as a test, a bland content send with nothing that might be fingerprinted as spam.
on 16-07-2021 07:17 PM
This website will tell you if you are on blacklists;
It's safe to use, I use it in my job sometimes when troubleshooting mailbox issues.