Norton email error 421 unexpected failure
Eileen Conn
occasionally after sending some emails an error message from Norton
security saying:
Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try later.
According to the Turnpike log window it says the emails have been sent.
It is too complicated for me at this moment to keep asking people if
they have received an email I am trying to send them. I will on doing
that when I can.
In the meantime, I have googled on this but can find only discussions
about this error using Outlook.
Does anyone have any experience of it and know if I can ignore it, ie
perhaps as Turnpike is in control rather than Norton?
Any suggestions on what I c/should do?
--
Eileen Conn
Richard Clayton
<e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> writes
>I use Turnpike. Over the last several days I have been getting
>occasionally after sending some emails an error message from Norton
>security saying:
>
>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try later.
This is a perfectly standard temporary error from a mail server (4xx)
being reported by Norton -- and from the sound of it, they believe it to
be permanent failure ...
>According to the Turnpike log window it says the emails have been sent.
Norton has persuaded Turnpike that it has accepted the email and will
handle it from here on in (probably because it wants to do some virus
checking of some kind).
If you turn on the email debugging and look in the Turnpike log window
you will see some kind of 2xx code which is an OK (a 5xx code would be a
hard (not temporary) error).
>It is too complicated for me at this moment to keep asking people if
>they have received an email I am trying to send them. I will on doing
>that when I can.
You could turn off Norton's checking of outbound email (assuming your
sysadmin will permit it) ... otherwise you'll need to raise it as a bug
with Norton :( This is not a Turnpike problem.
--
richard writing to inform and not as company policy
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
Andy
<ric...@highwayman.com> wrote
when (a) the poster does have Norton but it is set to not check mail;
(b) the poster does not have Norton at all; (c) the poster isn't using
TP.
So, it isn't always a Norton problem, and might never be.
While it also seems to be always a Demon problem, that may only mean
that those who post here use Demon.
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society].
Visit <URL:http://www.austrianphilately.com>
Jim Crowther
Clayton wrote:
>In article <DgCL0QIh...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk>, Eileen Conn
><e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> writes
[]
>
>>According to the Turnpike log window it says the emails have been sent.
[]
>
>You could turn off Norton's checking of outbound email (assuming your
>sysadmin will permit it) ... otherwise you'll need to raise it as a bug
>with Norton :( This is not a Turnpike problem.
Eileen, just turn off the outbound email checking as Richard suggests.
If there's malware in outgoing mail you'd already be infected, so there
no real point in this check anyway.
--
Jim Crowther
Eileen Conn
Crowther <Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
hoping to hear. It sounds from all this that none of you think this is
actually stopping my emails going out. I have now had evidence that at
least one that was supposed to have been stopped did in fact get
through. If it isn't interfering with the sending of email I will
happily leave this till someone can be with me to do whatever is
necessary on changing the settings. I am too preoccupied to attempt that
as in my pre-occupations I am highly likely to make a mistake
(experience, experience ...)
I am interested in the remark that this might be a Demon only problem.
Does anyone else share that view?
--
Eileen Conn
Richard Clayton
<e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> writes
>It sounds from all this that none of you think this is
>actually stopping my emails going out.
Quite the contrary ... it sounded from your initial description as if
Norton is taking responsibility for the email, and then throwing it away
at the first sign of trouble :(
> I have now had evidence that at
>least one that was supposed to have been stopped did in fact get
>through.
But perhaps Norton is just telling you about the temporary glitch and it
will retry later on (just as one would hope it would!)
Experimentation will show you if powering down in the meantime makes any
difference --- but this is all Norton specific and so this isn't
really the place for that discussion.
>I am interested in the remark that this might be a Demon only problem.
>Does anyone else share that view?
I expect that this afternoon some of Demon's many mail servers are
generating 4xx responses to some users (which can occur because of load,
because of greylisting, because of all sorts of possible temporary
events), and that's why you're seeing it with Demon. A 4xx response is
commonplace on all ISPs, and your software needs to deal with it.
Turnpike does!
Richard Clayton
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <AAIz2hIw...@highwayman.com>, Richard Clayton
><ric...@highwayman.com> wrote
[explanation of a Norton error message]
>Accepted; but various postings in this group have reported this error
>when (a) the poster does have Norton but it is set to not check mail;
if Norton is reporting email error messages when it is not checking
email then that is very prescient of it -- maybe it is secretly checking
email for the heck of it, and is just pretending that it isn't
>(b) the poster does not have Norton at all;
Then the appearance of the message "Email error - 421 unexpected
failure, please try later" must be diagnosed in another way.
I doubt though that in such a case the poster would describe it as "an
error message from Norton security" and so I wouldn't answer the way
that I just did.
>(c) the poster isn't using
>TP.
Nothing (much) in my answer referred to Turnpike, so my explanation
remains the same -- except I'd probably suggest it was entirely off-
topic for d.i.s.t. :)
>So, it isn't always a Norton problem, and might never be.
>
>While it also seems to be always a Demon problem, that may only mean
>that those who post here use Demon.
As I've just written in another article, the temporary appearance of 4xx
errors is not "a problem" per se, but the way in which email servers
avoid creating permanent failures in temporary circumstances.
If these responses continue for some time -- after periods of high load
for example -- then they may indicate something is wrong with a
particular mail server.
If that mail server is Demon's then demon.service is just over there...
Jim Crowther
Clayton wrote:
>In article <AF9bNvXf...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk>, Eileen Conn
><e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>It sounds from all this that none of you think this is
>>actually stopping my emails going out.
>
>Quite the contrary ... it sounded from your initial description as if
>Norton is taking responsibility for the email, and then throwing it away
>at the first sign of trouble :(
>
>> I have now had evidence that at
>>least one that was supposed to have been stopped did in fact get
>>through.
>
>But perhaps Norton is just telling you about the temporary glitch and it
>will retry later on (just as one would hope it would!)
>
>Experimentation will show you if powering down in the meantime makes any
>difference --- but this is all Norton specific and so this isn't
>really the place for that discussion.
*If* Norton is holding on to it, powering down might cause it to be
lost, depending on what precautions Norton takes against that
possibility.
>>I am interested in the remark that this might be a Demon only problem.
>>Does anyone else share that view?
>
>I expect that this afternoon some of Demon's many mail servers are
>generating 4xx responses to some users (which can occur because of load,
>because of greylisting, because of all sorts of possible temporary
>events), and that's why you're seeing it with Demon. A 4xx response is
>commonplace on all ISPs, and your software needs to deal with it.
>Turnpike does!
So Eileen, it really would be best to turn off the Norton checking
outbound email, as Turnpike will ensure the message gets out eventually.
--
Jim Crowther
Jim Crowther
>In message <AAIz2hIw...@highwayman.com>, Richard Clayton
><ric...@highwayman.com> wrote
[]
>>
>>You could turn off Norton's checking of outbound email (assuming your
>>sysadmin will permit it) ... otherwise you'll need to raise it as a bug
>>with Norton :( This is not a Turnpike problem.
>>
>Accepted; but various postings in this group have reported this error
>when (a) the poster does have Norton but it is set to not check mail;
>(b) the poster does not have Norton at all; (c) the poster isn't using
>TP.
>
>So, it isn't always a Norton problem, and might never be.
But Eileen's problem isn't the temporary errors, it's Norton telling
Turnpike that the email has been successfully posted regardless of the
error. I happen to know something of Eileen's email circumstances, and
the very best advice *for her* is to ditch the Norton checks so there's
no confusion as to the status of an outgoing message.
>While it also seems to be always a Demon problem, that may only mean
>that those who post here use Demon.
Temporary outgoing email problems surely happen at times with all ISPs.
--
Jim Crowther
Roland Perry
16:37:05 on Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Jim Crowther
<Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> remarked:
>Eileen's problem isn't the temporary errors, it's Norton telling
>Turnpike that the email has been successfully posted regardless of the
>error.
If Norton is purporting to be a mail relay, that would be the correct
thing to do. It's been successfully posted to the relay!
But it should also retry the email (according to some hopefully
configurable timeout parameters) and if ultimately undelivered, report
that back to the sender - preferably as a bounce mail rather than
whatever other undisclosed method the OP "got" the message "from
Norton".
If it's not purporting to be a relay, then it should pass the error
message back to Turnpike immediately, for Turnpike to decide what to do
with regard to retries.
ps. I just tried this with Postcast Server which is running on my PC,
sending a message that I knew would be bounced; and while Postcast
initially accepted the message and Turnpike saw a successful
transmission, a bounce message found its way back to me (aka my Turnpike
as a mail receiver as well as a sender).
--
Roland Perry
Andy
[
>Eileen, just turn off the outbound email checking as Richard suggests.
>If there's malware in outgoing mail you'd already be infected, so there
>no real point in this check anyway.
>
only one situation in which you (having a working AV) could propagate
nasties without either being infected yourself, or causing your
antivirus to scream'n'shout.
This is, you receive a message with an infected attachment, and you use
TP's "RESEND" feature to forward it unopened. That way, you don't
explicitly save the attachment to disk, so your AV doesn't get the
chance to grab it.
Andy
<e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> wrote
>I use Turnpike. Over the last several days I have been getting
>occasionally after sending some emails an error message from Norton
>security saying:
>
>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try later.
>
no mention of Norton in it!
Grabbing a recent one of mine, I see:
Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:03:47 SMTP command rejected while talking to
post.demon.co.uk: DATA
421 Unexpected failure, please try later
and this is in the connectlog.txt as created by TP. I see no Norton, or
indeed any other AV. It says to me that TP, the generator of this log,
was talking to Demon; which rejected it. Not to Norton! Are we
conflating two scenarios?
Andy
<ric...@highwayman.com> wrote
[]
>
>If that mail server is Demon's then demon.service is just over there...
>
postings, discussing the same topic with similar lack of resolution. The
problem is reported by people both using TP and not; both using Norton
and not; and both using Windows and not!
It would seem unusual that error-421 has always been happening, but only
recently has anyone noticed. I'd favour the suggestion that one of
Demon's mail-receiving boxes is having a bad hair month, the rest being
OK.
Does anyone here know if a second attempt to send outgoing email via
Demon is connected to a newly-randomly-chosen box, or if once logged on
you are locked to your first assigned box?
Paul Terry
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> writes
>Grabbing a recent one of mine, I see:
>
> Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:03:47 SMTP command rejected while talking to
> post.demon.co.uk: DATA
> 421 Unexpected failure, please try later
>
>and this is in the connectlog.txt as created by TP. I see no Norton, or
>indeed any other AV. It says to me that TP, the generator of this log,
>was talking to Demon; which rejected it. Not to Norton! Are we
>conflating two scenarios?
Not really.
A 421 error is no big deal - Turnpike will attempt to send the email a
couple of minutes later (and that is successful in my experience).
The problem occurs for those using suboptimal email clients, or who
interpose other software (such as Norton) in the outgoing mail stream -
some of these folk are finding that the correct response to a 421 ("try
again") is not happening.
--
Paul Terry
Eileen Conn
><e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>I use Turnpike. Over the last several days I have been getting
>>occasionally after sending some emails an error message from Norton
>>security saying:
>>
>>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try later.
>>
>Just a mo... Eileen's message, like other peoples, is as above. There's
>no mention of Norton in it!
>
>Grabbing a recent one of mine, I see:
>
> Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:03:47 SMTP command rejected while talking to
> post.demon.co.uk: DATA
> 421 Unexpected failure, please try later
>
>and this is in the connectlog.txt as created by TP. I see no Norton, or
>indeed any other AV. It says to me that TP, the generator of this log,
>was talking to Demon; which rejected it. Not to Norton! Are we
>conflating two scenarios?
This message >>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try
later.<< was in a Norton pop up. There was no reference in Turnpike's
log to any of this interruption. The only reference there was that the
email had been sent, ie the one alleged by Norton not to have been sent.
--
Eileen Conn
Roland Perry
1 Sep 2010, Eileen Conn <e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>This message >>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try
>later.<< was in a Norton pop up. There was no reference in Turnpike's
>log to any of this interruption. The only reference there was that the
>email had been sent, ie the one alleged by Norton not to have been sent.
If that's the case, then Norton seems to be falling between the two
stools I described in some detail in my previous post to this thread.
--
Roland Perry
Pedt
1 Sep 2010, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wibbled
>In message <DgCL0QIh...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk>, Eileen Conn
><e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>I use Turnpike. Over the last several days I have been getting
>>occasionally after sending some emails an error message from Norton
>>security saying:
>>
>>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try later.
>>
>Just a mo... Eileen's message, like other peoples, is as above. There's
>no mention of Norton in it!
>
Seriously, Norton puts that message into an ickle pop-up window. I
expect Eileen has done a c&p.
--
Pedt
Anagrammed Periodic Table of Elements
http://www.pedt.demon.co.uk/gfx/periodic-table.gif
Diamond is a form of Bra Con
Andy
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote
>In message <EXrGNEIA...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>, at 19:09:04 on Wed,
>1 Sep 2010, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wibbled
>>In message <DgCL0QIh...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk>, Eileen Conn
>><e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>I use Turnpike. Over the last several days I have been getting
>>>occasionally after sending some emails an error message from Norton
> ^^^^^^
>>>security saying:
>>>
>>>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try later.
>>>
>>Just a mo... Eileen's message, like other peoples, is as above. There's
>>no mention of Norton in it!
>>
>Would you like to borrow my glasses Andy? :)
Ah - that's the problem with varifocals - tunnel vision!
>
>Seriously, Norton puts that message into an ickle pop-up window. I
>expect Eileen has done a c&p.
>
--
Andy
<e.c...@nutbrook.demon.co.uk> wrote
[
>This message >>Email error - 421 unexpected failure, please try
>later.<< was in a Norton pop up. There was no reference in Turnpike's
>log to any of this interruption. The only reference there was that the
>email had been sent, ie the one alleged by Norton not to have been sent.
>
I've got Norton but it's been told to leave email alone. I do get
extremely rare popups from it, so it's running, but none concern email.
Up turnpike doesn't pop, but the 421 message is in the connect log.
I may be misremembering, but I think that if Norton is active, TP posts
to it; Norton posts to Demon or wherever; if it can't it'll retry
provided the link remains active and you don't shut down the computer -
if you do the email is lost.
Barry Oakley
--
Barry Oakley
The 'Reply-To' address will be valid for a short time.
Eileen Conn
<Nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
Broadband.
--
Eileen Conn
Chris Hoskyns
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
Having experienced similar mail send failures with Norton Internet
Security (NIS), on reading this thread, submitted the problem to
Symantec. Their reply confirmed that NIS simply forgets the message if
it fails to send it. Part of their reply is quoted below:
"...
I am extremely sorry for the inconvenience caused to you and I will
definitely help you with this regard.
The problem can be caused by time-outs while attempting to send (and
receive) email. Pending a fix, Symantec recommends that customers
experiencing this problem, to temporarily disable outgoing email
scanning within their Norton product.
..."
NOTE: the inference of a fix pending. Hmmm, hopeful.
The reply reinforces Jim Crowther's earlier suggestion.
But NB: _the advice: 'to temporarily disable'._
With TP's UI, one might overlook an unexpected attachment right at the
bottom of the page, below all the reams of previous messages, legalese
and logos. So, the scenario mentioned by Andy Taylor, of innocently
forwarding an infected message is quite plausible.
--
Chris Hoskyns
Andy
Hoskyns <chris@zv#Anti-Spam-Delete-This#ac.co.uk> wrote
[
>With TP's UI, one might overlook an unexpected attachment right at the
>bottom of the page, below all the reams of previous messages, legalese
>and logos. So, the scenario mentioned by Andy Taylor, of innocently
>forwarding an infected message is quite plausible.
(pedant = ON)
with me, forwarding a message within TP strips off all the attachments.
The only ways to get round this are (a) save or decode all the
attachments, recreate the message, send it [the saving should cause your
AV to examine the attachments]; (b) re-send the message. In the latter
case it is not as far as I know formally saved, so could slip past AV. I
find it confusion-avoiding to separately email the recipient, saying "I
have re-sent you Auntie Flo's message; it will look as if she sent it
but I did and she doesn't know".
Wm...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>In message <WNtQLbKOvljMFwhU@zv#delete-this-Anti-Spam#ac.co.uk>, Chris
>Hoskyns <chris@zv#Anti-Spam-Delete-This#ac.co.uk> wrote
>[
>>With TP's UI, one might overlook an unexpected attachment right at the
>>bottom of the page, below all the reams of previous messages, legalese
>>and logos. So, the scenario mentioned by Andy Taylor, of innocently
>>forwarding an infected message is quite plausible.
>
>(pedant = ON)
>
>with me, forwarding a message within TP strips off all the attachments.
TP has more than one way of Forwarding messages. Strippers need not be
involved.
If the problem is the AV not playing nicely then I think you know what
to do.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Andy
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote
[
>TP has more than one way of Forwarding messages.
OK, so I receive an email from Bob with words and 19 attachments of
assorted file types. I wish to use TP6.07 to forward it to Alice, with
all the attachments attached, and with words of mine added to those of
Bob. I only know of two (and a bit) ways:
a) within TP, re-send it to Alice unchanged and send her a separate
explanatory email
b) save one-by-one, or decode all 19, to some folder; forward Bob's
email to Alice (which strips the attachments); delete the 19 "there was
a file here" lines; amend the text as wanted; import the 19 attachments
one by one; send.
b1) what I'd actually do is: decode all; forward Bob to Alice; within
Windows Explorer go to where I decoded into; select the 19; right-click
and choose 'send to email'; tell it to leave images alone.
I'm now in TP and have 2 emails open: i) Bob's words ii) stuff with the
attachments duly attached. I delete the stuff, copy'n'paste Bob's words,
amend as needed, adjust headers, post to Alice, delete the other.
I'd love for there to be an easier way!
Wm...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>I'd love for there to be an easier way!
Look for someone from TP saying in this group they want to see the
message "as is"
I'm surprised you didn't notice that, I mean, you have been here for a
while, Andy.
Andy
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote
>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:05:40 <5R+pc9Sk...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
>
>>I'd love for there to be an easier way!
>
>Look for someone from TP saying in this group they want to see the
>message "as is"
>
>I'm surprised you didn't notice that, I mean, you have been here for a
>while, Andy.
>
I've seen the term, eg from Paul O. Try 'help' - produces the below.
Experimenting tells me that choosing Forward produces an email with an
icon. If I right-click the icon the option "quote message" produces the
text of the message and the ghosts of the attachments. However, the
other options, eg 'show', produce the text plus the attachments.
I did not know that. Thanks for enlightening me.
=============================
Forwarding messages
Select or open the message and the select either of the following.
Resend ‘as is’.
Use this option in the Message menu to forward a message that has been
sent to you in error. The message will then be re-sent exactly as
received. The only change will be that Resent from: Resent-To:,
Resent-Cc: headers etc. will be added.
If you re-send an encrypted message ‘as is’, an alert message will
remind you that the recipient of the message will only be able open the
message if they have the appropriate key.
If you decrypt a message you cannot then re-send ‘as is’. If you
attempt to do so an alert message will advise you that it is not
possible to re-send a message that has been decrypted.
Forward a copy of message(s) received.
Click the Forward button on the toolbar or choose from the message menu.
Use this option when you want to add text to the forwarded message. You
cannot change the attachment. If you attempt to change the summary
header or anything within an attachment you will get an alert message.
When you forward a message you can choose to send the message encrypted
to the new recipients if you wish.
A new message form will appear with a copy of the message shown as an
icon followed by a description.
The subject of your message is automatically filled in for you and a
personal signature is added the end of the message.
The attachment opens with a summary header followed by the message to be
forwarded.
To open the forwarded message inline, i.e. within grey bars,
double-click on an icon. You can also open an attachment by
right-clicking an icon and choosing show from the short-cut menu.
Complete the message
Set any attached message options
Insert any necessary text at the beginning of the message.
The annotation e.g. ---Forwarded message follows--- is set on the
Standard text tab of the Personality applied to the message. You can
delete or over type this default text if you wish.
You can also added further attachments as required. Just drag them from
an open folder into your message
Enter an email address and then post the message.
Copyright (c) 1995-2002 Thus plc.
Chris Hoskyns
>>innocently forwarding an infected message is quite plausible.
>
>(pedant = ON)
>
>with me, forwarding a message within TP strips off all the attachments.
>The only ways to get round this are (a)
Ah! You've already twigged the forward and reverse levers!
The escape button might come in useful when looking at the forwarding
options.
> In the latter case it is not as far as I know formally saved, so could
>slip past AV.
[cut]
Antivirus ID signatures get issued after the new viruses have been
spawned, so one could get one and resend it without it being detected
during their 'incubation' period; especially if it were a newborn
stealthed malicious script hidden in an html email message.
>recipient, saying "I have re-sent you Auntie Flo's message; it will
>look as if she sent it but I did and she doesn't know".
The 'From' line of a forward message shows whatever has been set in the
Folder Properties/ Sending tab/use a specific Personality/From: line of
the folder where the message resides. You could change it to say:
"Not from Auntie Flo" <A...@zyx.cba>!
--
Chris Hoskyns