SMX Rejecting legitimate emails

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › SMX Rejecting legitimate emails

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#208517 15-Feb-2017 14:04

We are beginnig to get calls from clients with SMX issues (and not just the pop timing out and horrible issues with old xtra mail).

Two issues: 1 - Emails rejected as SMX decided an SPF record without the explicit ip address or domain for the sender but with a ~all type ending - indicating allow other senders but in a grey sort of way meant dump all mail for that domain as it wasn't coming from te explicit ip given. Made a mess of the fact workers move around the country at times. So SPF now has accept all without caring who it comes from on the end of it. - Lessened security to allow basic emails to get through.

An email containing a 20 page PDF newsletter, with belmarrahealth.com as part of URL referencing an article on their website, got bounced by SMX and not delivered to their client that they host. That business will be missing out on work as it took three phone calls and a number of emails to get the simple email through with SMX.

They claim their upstream provider said belmarrahealth was compromised. Couldn't find it compromised in the 120 plus black lists I consulted. also have to ask the question, if SMX host mail for this company, what the hell are they doing sending it or referring ti to an upstream provider? Who is the upstream provider? SMX should be the end point.

SMX seem to be in such a flurry to not send spam and not be another yahoo that they are dumping legitimate mail all over the place. how about - first do no harm? Very under whelmed so far.

https://mxtoolbox.com/domain/belmarrahealth.com/

1 | 2

12999 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

#1725883 24-Feb-2017 20:11

Per my comments in the other thread, has a case been raised for this?

I'm not asking to make you go through the process of backwards and forward, but would certainly appreciate being able to follow up IF things have not been handed correctly.

SPF issues are a whole different basket, and Do need to be raised directly to SMX.

SMX will not be another yahoo, spark have made this move due to how the whole yahoo ordeal was.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1726162 25-Feb-2017 16:31

hio77:

Per my comments in the other thread, has a case been raised for this?

I'm not asking to make you go through the process of backwards and forward, but would certainly appreciate being able to follow up IF things have not been handed correctly.

SPF issues are a whole different basket, and Do need to be raised directly to SMX.

SMX will not be another yahoo, spark have made this move due to how the whole yahoo ordeal was.

Yes.

We have to make our SPF less explicit and more general - meaning we are now giving a less certain indication of who is allowed to send as us - a step in the wrong direction we think

They allowed one email through so the newsletter could be sent to the printer but we are now having to encrypt our email to stop them calling a single link to a single article on a web site with thousands of pages on it - one of which may be spammy - from stopping a 23 page PDf being sent as it is spam. Seriously - one link, non spam - maybe raise the spam score but not out right kill it.

We notified the receiving printer SMX are banning emails to them and notified the organisation on ways to circumvent spam checking by hiding stuff from SMX. The days of encryption keys is getting closer for the general populance.

Neither of these is anywhere near a good solution for anyone.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1726164 25-Feb-2017 16:33

hio77:

Per my comments in the other thread, has a case been raised for this?

I'm not asking to make you go through the process of backwards and forward, but would certainly appreciate being able to follow up IF things have not been handed correctly.

SPF issues are a whole different basket, and Do need to be raised directly to SMX.

SMX will not be another yahoo, spark have made this move due to how the whole yahoo ordeal was.

You're right - they are already worse. Weeks without emails and a total shambles lasting months during the change over. Their name is worse than yahoos. did i mention the horrific server speeds and the BS we are going through dealing with non-spam being dumped as spam?

hio77

12999 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

#1726659 26-Feb-2017 20:21

nunz:

You're right - they are already worse. Weeks without emails and a total shambles lasting months during the change over. Their name is worse than yahoos. did i mention the horrific server speeds and the BS we are going through dealing with non-spam being dumped as spam?

I will be very clear here, This is Highly misleading.

Until this week where SMALL batches of customers were moved across, Everyone was still on the yahoo service.

Nothing do with SMX unless YOU have migrated already.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

yitz

2075 posts

Uber Geek

#1726663 26-Feb-2017 20:50

The mail delivery has already been switched over to SMX as of 2nd Feb so that includes the aspects nunz is complaining about if the outbound servers are rejecting his PDFs then it will be SMX scanning not Yahoo's and also bouncing of inbound messages back to source due to SPF or spam scoring will also be by SMX systems.

OmniouS

423 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1726704 26-Feb-2017 23:02

nunz:

Two issues: 1 - Emails rejected as SMX decided an SPF record without the explicit ip address or domain for the sender but with a ~all type ending - indicating allow other senders but in a grey sort of way meant dump all mail for that domain as it wasn't coming from te explicit ip given. Made a mess of the fact workers move around the country at times. So SPF now has accept all without caring who it comes from on the end of it. - Lessened security to allow basic emails to get through.

The best way to resolve this is have all staff send via your mail server (or another one) using authenticated SMTP over SSL or TLS so it all comes from the same place

Configure DKIM signing and look into DMARC while you're at it.

Anti spam providers use a huge range of measures to determine whether or not to block an email. I know with a few of the larger players, having an SPF soft-fail will increase the SPAM score a lot faster than a soft-pass. Using ~ for a soft-fail should really only be used for migrations.

yitz

2075 posts

Uber Geek

#1726706 26-Feb-2017 23:08

Or instead of you providing that server you can consider the likes of SMTP2GO.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

bigalow

566 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1726753 27-Feb-2017 00:03

having a look at that domain here

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools#dnsReport|type=domain&&value=belmarrahealth.com

it doesn't have a pastmaster@ or abuse@

some email servers mark the email as spam if you dont have those 2 email adresses

and it has 2 sdf records

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1726757 27-Feb-2017 00:13

biggal:

having a look at that domain here

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools#dnsReport|type=domain&&value=belmarrahealth.com

it doesn't have a pastmaster@ or abuse@

some email servers mark the email as spam if you dont have those 2 email adresses

and it has 2 sdf records

No one is perfect. However to dump legitimate emails, from legitimate NZ organizations to other legitimate organizations where there is no history of spam in the sending or receiving org and there was ONE email with ONE link to ONE web page (non spam page) in a 23 page PDF - that's extreme.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1726760 27-Feb-2017 00:17

OmniouS:

nunz:

Two issues: 1 - Emails rejected as SMX decided an SPF record without the explicit ip address or domain for the sender but with a ~all type ending - indicating allow other senders but in a grey sort of way meant dump all mail for that domain as it wasn't coming from te explicit ip given. Made a mess of the fact workers move around the country at times. So SPF now has accept all without caring who it comes from on the end of it. - Lessened security to allow basic emails to get through.

The best way to resolve this is have all staff send via your mail server (or another one) using authenticated SMTP over SSL or TLS so it all comes from the same place

Configure DKIM signing and look into DMARC while you're at it.

Anti spam providers use a huge range of measures to determine whether or not to block an email. I know with a few of the larger players, having an SPF soft-fail will increase the SPAM score a lot faster than a soft-pass. Using ~ for a soft-fail should really only be used for migrations.

The person sending the email does send from one server - which has good spf records and is 99.9% of the time the only server used for sending mail from for that domain. no history of spam in sender or receiver - this was an out and out ban based on a single link referencing a single article (non spam)on a site in a 23 page PDF being sent for printing as a paper copy newsletter. Ridiculous ban.

Hibino

166 posts

Master Geek

#1729282 3-Mar-2017 09:06

Well, yesterday xtra just rejected our newsletter and claiming it is spam. That's 4000+ customers with @xtra.co.nz that signed up with us over the 7 years.

All our newsletter is sending from 1 IP address and with SPF+DKIM, with well reputation rating over the years.

ArcticSilver

729 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1729299 3-Mar-2017 09:30

I won't go into too much detail because I've posted on SMX many times before, but most of it all ties back to this extract (from their website):

"SMX guarantees 99.999% clean email delivered."

I am a firm believer that spam management should be in the control of the client. You can filter it into a folder, but you should not be blocking it except where you are 100% SURE it is spam. The above statement from SMX says it all, to meet their target they MUST employ over-reaching policy's and err on the side of blocking legitimate mail, I believe this is a very good reason to never touch them.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1729346 3-Mar-2017 11:21

ArcticSilver:

I won't go into too much detail because I've posted on SMX many times before, but most of it all ties back to this extract (from their website):

"SMX guarantees 99.999% clean email delivered."

I am a firm believer that spam management should be in the control of the client. You can filter it into a folder, but you should not be blocking it except where you are 100% SURE it is spam. The above statement from SMX says it all, to meet their target they MUST employ over-reaching policy's and err on the side of blocking legitimate mail, I believe this is a very good reason to never touch them.

Up front, I don't use ISP email, haven't done for well over a decade... BUT...

Are you seriously saying you'd prefer to actually receive 100000 pieces of email to get the 1 that was miscategorised? If you are saying that, and you actually mean it, I reckon there's only 2 or 3 of you in the country, and you shouldn't be using any ISP email anyway.

Just think for a moment about the resource impacts on the provider of having to store maybe 30, 40 times as much as they currently do - and all the users having to download and store that much extra...

Sorry, it's entirely reasonable to filter spam in the provider, if not actually the only practical way to do it.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

clinty

1182 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1729351 3-Mar-2017 11:35

Talkiet:

ArcticSilver:

I won't go into too much detail because I've posted on SMX many times before, but most of it all ties back to this extract (from their website):

"SMX guarantees 99.999% clean email delivered."

I am a firm believer that spam management should be in the control of the client. You can filter it into a folder, but you should not be blocking it except where you are 100% SURE it is spam. The above statement from SMX says it all, to meet their target they MUST employ over-reaching policy's and err on the side of blocking legitimate mail, I believe this is a very good reason to never touch them.

Up front, I don't use ISP email, haven't done for well over a decade... BUT...

Are you seriously saying you'd prefer to actually receive 100000 pieces of email to get the 1 that was miscategorised? If you are saying that, and you actually mean it, I reckon there's only 2 or 3 of you in the country, and you shouldn't be using any ISP email anyway.

Just think for a moment about the resource impacts on the provider of having to store maybe 30, 40 times as much as they currently do - and all the users having to download and store that much extra...

Sorry, it's entirely reasonable to filter spam in the provider, if not actually the only practical way to do it.

Cheers - N

I think he means he would prefer them to have 99.95% accuracy, let 1 or 2 spam through and not block any legitimate e-mail, than promise 99.999% and have legitimate e-mail be caught up in the net

Clint

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#1729366 3-Mar-2017 12:04

ArcticSilver:

I am a firm believer that spam management should be in the control of the client.

I 100% agree . The client should have that option (note , option)
There should be an option to opt out of the spam filter .

However, yahoo also did not give the option to opt out of spam filtering

Given its a freebee service, perhaps they are just setting things up as easily & quickly as poss ?
Freebee, take what they give you I guess .

""SMX guarantees 99.999% clean email delivered.""
Who here actually believes that claim ? Just marketing nonsense ?
Most of the time , users wont know when a legit email has been blocked .

1 | 2