On 05/03/2024 15:32, Theo wrote:
> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>> On 05/03/2024 11:27, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 10:51:24 GMT, "Theo"
>>> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Basically it's an idea that worked 20 years ago but doesn't work in the
>>>> modern world.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Thanks for the research and summary, that's a reminder of more
>>> innocent times!
>>>
>>> Cheers - Jaimie
>>
>> If you're willing to spend money (circa £30pa) to fix it then you could
>> have a word with the technical people at https://www.authsmtp.co.uk/ to
>> see if they can offer a solution via their service.
>
> I don't think there is a solution. You don't own the columbus.name domain,
> so you can't change its DNS. You can't send 'authentic' @columbus.name
> emails whatever you do because the owner of columbus.name (Verisign) has in
> effect declared in their DNS that no third party sends 'authentic' emails
> (with valid SPF/DKIM).
>
> Verisign are the only ones in the position of setting its DNS to point to an
> email service with appropriate authentication. But they have never offered
> an outbound SMTP service and have no plans to, so they refuse to do so.
>
> Best you can do its use the other features of the domain you do own and not
> send emails with @columbus.name, use it for receive only and send from
> @chris.columbus.name instead.
>
> The problem boils down to using email hosted on a domain you don't own, even
> if it's part of a package including a domain you do. It's not fundamentally
> different from having an ISP email address - you don't get the rights to
> move it to a different host, you have to live with their setup.
>
> Theo

Go and look at the AuthSMTP website. Their entire business model is
sending email as if it comes from someone else. Obviously that's easier
if they can control all the SPF etc settings in DNS but they might have
a trick or two that keeps Google happy.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> Go and look at the AuthSMTP website. Their entire business model is
> sending email as if it comes from someone else. Obviously that's easier
> if they can control all the SPF etc settings in DNS but they might have
> a trick or two that keeps Google happy.

Their business model is sending *bulk* email - ie mailshots and similar. As
they say:
https://www.authsmtp.co.uk/faqs/what-is-spf-record-sender-policy-framework.html

"Is SPF mandatory?

No, there is no mandatory requirement that forces you to add an SPF record to your domain name but there are many advantages:

It protects your domain name from spoofing and phishing
Having an SPF record improves the deliverability of your emails
Some email providers require you to have an SPF record before they will accept any email from your domain name.
You need to have an SPF record setup if you want to use similar systems such as DKIM signing and
DMARC"

For Google, lack of SPF is going to be a problem. Google have new rules for bulk senders:
https://blog.google/products/gmail/gmail-security-authentication-spam-protection/
which require email authentication (ie DKIM/SPF):
https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126

A 'bulk sender' sends 5000 messages a day to Gmail. If you self-host you
can probably stay below this level, but any shared third party mail server
(even an ISP one) probably crosses this threshold.

So you might get away with it if you pick an extremely obscure mail host who
handles little traffic, or host your own on something like
https://mailinabox.email/ but any large sender is going to trip into needing
SPF.

Maybe they have some dark arts, but likely they have to play by the same
rules as everyone else.

Theo

Am 05.03.24 um 13:36 schrieb Chris:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> To use the brain is not forbidden.
>> And I strongly hope the EU increases the pressure on these antisocial
>> and monopolistic companies further. The last one getting a hit was Apple
>> with a fine of €1.8 bln. Won't be the last and certainly not the highest.
>
> The thing I don't understand is why we don't have equivalent industries in
> Europe that can compete? These tech giants are beneficial, but it would be
> nice to have choices from outside of the US.

+1; the tech world is functioning in a very primitive way: Gravitation
works.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 05/03/2024 22:42, Theo wrote:
> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>> Go and look at the AuthSMTP website. Their entire business model is
>> sending email as if it comes from someone else. Obviously that's easier
>> if they can control all the SPF etc settings in DNS but they might have
>> a trick or two that keeps Google happy.
>
> Their business model is sending *bulk* email - ie mailshots and similar. As
> they say:

They've changed the structure of their website and hidden the information.

Yes, bulk email sent as if coming from someone else's domain is their
main business but they previously had a feature whereby if you could
prove you could access emails sent to any address then they would allow
you to spoof sending from that address.

That feature is still there, reading between the lines, but it's not
explicitly called out any more. I've sent them an email to ask.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

On 06/03/2024 20:32, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 05/03/2024 22:42, Theo wrote:
>> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>>> Go and look at the AuthSMTP website. Their entire business model is
>>> sending email as if it comes from someone else. Obviously that's easier
>>> if they can control all the SPF etc settings in DNS but they might have
>>> a trick or two that keeps Google happy.
>>
>> Their business model is sending *bulk* email - ie mailshots and
>> similar.  As
>> they say:
>
> They've changed the structure of their website and hidden the information.
>
> Yes, bulk email sent as if coming from someone else's domain is their
> main business but they previously had a feature whereby if you could
> prove you could access emails sent to any address then they would allow
> you to spoof sending from that address.
>
> That feature is still there, reading between the lines, but it's not
> explicitly called out any more. I've sent them an email to ask.

And the reply was...

They can't guarantee it without the ability to set SPF & DKIM but they
offer a moneyback guarantee so suggested trying it and see.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/2024 20:32, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> > On 05/03/2024 22:42, Theo wrote:
> >> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> >>> Go and look at the AuthSMTP website. Their entire business model is
> >>> sending email as if it comes from someone else. Obviously that's easier
> >>> if they can control all the SPF etc settings in DNS but they might have
> >>> a trick or two that keeps Google happy.
> >>
> >> Their business model is sending *bulk* email - ie mailshots and
> >> similar.  As
> >> they say:
> >
> > They've changed the structure of their website and hidden the information.
> >
> > Yes, bulk email sent as if coming from someone else's domain is their
> > main business but they previously had a feature whereby if you could
> > prove you could access emails sent to any address then they would allow
> > you to spoof sending from that address.
> >
> > That feature is still there, reading between the lines, but it's not
> > explicitly called out any more. I've sent them an email to ask.

Whether they will allow you to spoof sending from an address into their
system, and what the recipient thinks about the matter, are different
things...

> And the reply was...
>
> They can't guarantee it without the ability to set SPF & DKIM but they
> offer a moneyback guarantee so suggested trying it and see.

Fair enough. Would be worth a try I suppose - if their fees are acceptable.

Theo

Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/2024 20:32, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>> On 05/03/2024 22:42, Theo wrote:
>>> Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>>>> Go and look at the AuthSMTP website. Their entire business model is
>>>> sending email as if it comes from someone else. Obviously that's easier
>>>> if they can control all the SPF etc settings in DNS but they might have
>>>> a trick or two that keeps Google happy.
>>>
>>> Their business model is sending *bulk* email - ie mailshots and
>>> similar.  As
>>> they say:
>>
>> They've changed the structure of their website and hidden the information.
>>
>> Yes, bulk email sent as if coming from someone else's domain is their
>> main business but they previously had a feature whereby if you could
>> prove you could access emails sent to any address then they would allow
>> you to spoof sending from that address.
>>
>> That feature is still there, reading between the lines, but it's not
>> explicitly called out any more. I've sent them an email to ask.
>
> And the reply was...
>
> They can't guarantee it without the ability to set SPF & DKIM but they
> offer a moneyback guarantee so suggested trying it and see.

So basically no change in my situation, except with a fee. I'll pass
thanks.

On 4 Mar 2024 at 10:43:44 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

> It appears that, for several weeks now, e-mail from Plusnet has been
> rejected by Google. I have asked Plusnet about this and they say there
> is nothing they can do and they are waiting for Google to resolve it.
>
> What on earth is going on that this state of affairs could arise and
> then not be resolved straight away?

I have this. I find it incredible that a large successful company like Plusnet
(owned by BT I believe) cannot get things sorted out. It looks like them being
petty -- they surely can't be incapable of fixing it? Don't they have email
admins any more?

I have set a reminder in my calendar to check my Plusnet WEBMAIL account each
month, a couple of days before payment is taken. I did that after I
discovered last year (via my bank account) that Plusnet were suddenly charging
me a much larger amount each month (I think it was at least 2 months before I
noticed this).

I had not noticed that I hadn't been getting Plusnet's courtesy emails each
month to tell me how much they were going to charge me. And of course I missed
the reminder that my contract was running out, hence the higher charges. (I've
been with PNet fot more than 15 years btw: they're good. Or were. We even had
our own Usenet News group!)

I spent ages phoning them (a) to find out what had happened and (b) what could
I do about it. A silver lining in the end was that they offered me a new
2-year contract at an incredibly low figure ... I presumed this was to
compensate me for the extra charges, and all the buggeration. (I _hope_ this
was the case: they definitely didn't want to say so.)

BTW the last person I spoke to was a person who actually sounded like he knew
what he was talking about. I wanted to check that they weren't suddenly going
to say "whoops we made a mistake! Sorry - we need to double your payment!".
This chap looked at the contract and "Hm -- that _is_ low! But that's what
they've given you [note the "they" - one department talking about another
department] : so that's your contract - don't worry about it."

I don't get it. Plusnet are _big_. Google are _immense_. Why can't the "big"
company sort out why -- no matter what the immense company are "guilty" of
doing – why their internal emails cannot get forwarded to Gmail, whcih has got
to be one of the biggest email services that exist! I can't really believe
that they're being petty, so that only leaves the possibility that they don't
have anyone who _can_ fix it!

Over and out. (Off to check my Plusnet Webmail again now...)

John

On 4 Mar 2024 at 14:37:31 CET, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

> Perhaps the odd mistake, but blocking an entire major UK company for
> several weeks can hardly be ignored as just a minor mishap.

Have you made any progress with any of the suggestions offered here?

Our website host (pair.com) also suggested trying to enable SPF and DKIM, but
they didn't appear overly confident:

> "Either the Gmail overlords have broken SPF checks on
> their end or they are now requiring both SPF and DKIM."

--
Martin

Martin-S <invalid@nomail.com> wrote:

> On 4 Mar 2024 at 14:37:31 CET, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the odd mistake, but blocking an entire major UK company for
> > several weeks can hardly be ignored as just a minor mishap.
>
> Have you made any progress with any of the suggestions offered here?

I haven't a clue how to do them or where to begin.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

[snip]
>
> I haven't a clue how to do them or where to begin.
>
>
Liz,

Send me an email via your Plusnet server. You have my email address
from correspondence a year or two back.

I will see what its header contains and let you know if there is
anything that might prevent delivery to Google.

If I don't see anything in 24 hours, I will post here again so you can
confirm that you sent the email and what account it came from. I can
then ask my service provider to find out whether your email arrived at
my mail provider's server and if so why it was rejected.

Or you could ring me - you have my phone number from our previous
conversation.

--
Graham J

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > I haven't a clue how to do them or where to begin.
> >
> >
> Liz,
>
> Send me an email via your Plusnet server. You have my email address
> from correspondence a year or two back.

Sent

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 14 Mar 2024 at 13:54:42 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I haven't a clue how to do them or where to begin.
>>>
>>>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Send me an email via your Plusnet server. You have my email address
>> from correspondence a year or two back.
>
>
> Sent

FURTHER TO THIS ... I just had occasion to do my monthly login to Plusnet, in
order to check the bill that they email to me (otherwise I miss it, for the
unexplained reasons discussed in this thread).

So I logged in to their Webmail, checked the bill and then (lightbulb) (a dim
one): why not forward this email to myself at my GMail ID? I tried it. It
worked instantly.

Another dim lightbulb moment: I signed up with my first ISP back in the late
noughties: it was Force9 (a good company, I'd been told -- and they were/are).
Force9 were taken over by Plusnet some time later, a long time ago. Nothing
changed for me personally, that I noticed. But: I had/have to login at Plusnet
via the option "Force9", and so my email address WITH PLUSNET is still
anotherjohn@anotherjohn.f9.co.uk

Could it conceivably be that Plusnet have nowadays forgotten to include their
"legacy" users in their current support software developments? Or something?
I stopped getting their emails about two years ago (and only noticed this
about one year ago, as I said way above in this thread).

"Just sayin' "

John

Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2024 at 13:54:42 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
>
> > Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> I haven't a clue how to do them or where to begin.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Liz,
> >>
> >> Send me an email via your Plusnet server. You have my email address
> >> from correspondence a year or two back.
> >
> >
> > Sent
>
> FURTHER TO THIS ... I just had occasion to do my monthly login to Plusnet, in
> order to check the bill that they email to me (otherwise I miss it, for the
> unexplained reasons discussed in this thread).
>
> So I logged in to their Webmail, checked the bill and then (lightbulb) (a dim
> one): why not forward this email to myself at my GMail ID? I tried it. It
> worked instantly.
>
> Another dim lightbulb moment: I signed up with my first ISP back in the late
> noughties: it was Force9 (a good company, I'd been told -- and they were/are).
> Force9 were taken over by Plusnet some time later, a long time ago. Nothing
> changed for me personally, that I noticed. But: I had/have to login at Plusnet
> via the option "Force9", and so my email address WITH PLUSNET is still
> anotherjohn@anotherjohn.f9.co.uk
>
> Could it conceivably be that Plusnet have nowadays forgotten to include their
> "legacy" users in their current support software developments? Or something?
> I stopped getting their emails about two years ago (and only noticed this
> about one year ago, as I said way above in this thread).

I really don't know what is going on at Plusnet -- and neither do they,
it appears. When I gave them the previous enquiry reference number,
they said they couldn't look it up because their system was down. I
rang back 24 hours later and the system was still down, but could they
ring me back? We agreed a time and, to my astonishment, they rang me
back spot-on the agreed time.

I then re-raised a problem I had been having a few weeks ago when they
blocked my access to a server where I keep my website. I could not see
the web pages, although other people could and I could not connect with
the files using FTP. I also run websites for other people on that
server and could not see to them either. Curiously, I could sometimes
see my 'index' page if I selected it from my Bookmarks list, but it
refused to refresh and I could not follow any of the links.

The Plusnet helpdesk checked and confirmed that they could see the
website and navigate around it, so the problem wasn't with the server.
They then told me that Screwfix were having the same trouble, so it was
already being investigated.

I then asked how they were getting on with the problem of Gmail
rejecting Plusnet e-mails and they seemed most surprised (I suspect they
thought I was making it up).

They said they would send me an e-mail to confirm the conversation about
the website problem, but haven't done so yet.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2024 at 13:54:42 GMT, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
>
>> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I haven't a clue how to do them or where to begin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> Send me an email via your Plusnet server. You have my email address
>>> from correspondence a year or two back.
>>
>>
>> Sent
>
> FURTHER TO THIS ... I just had occasion to do my monthly login to Plusnet, in
> order to check the bill that they email to me (otherwise I miss it, for the
> unexplained reasons discussed in this thread).
>
> So I logged in to their Webmail, checked the bill and then (lightbulb) (a dim
> one): why not forward this email to myself at my GMail ID? I tried it. It
> worked instantly.

Whenever I try to log in to the webmail the interface hangs for ages and
then none of my emails show up.