Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SPF bounces on migrated email account - mail forwarding broken
170 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Nabavi
May 2, 2012, 9:03:01 AM5/2/12
to
There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
system implements Sender Policy Framework. When we pointed this out
to Demon, we got the reply:
"Looking at the email headers and info you have provided the email
that is being rejected is being addressed to X...@YYY.com. This is
going through a mail filtering system emailfiltering.com and then is
being forwarded to your XXX@[DemonAccountName].com via our mail
server. The server is checking the SPF record for eu.blackberry.com,
but can't match it to the IP address used by emailfiltering.com.
We are currently working to turn off the SPF system in the next few
weeks, but the only advice I can give is to
get the forwarding changed.."
(I think the reference to eu.blackberry,com is a red herring, you get
the same bounce from any sender).
Does anyone have any clue what to do? The SPF website is just about
the most incomprehensible I've ever seen, but as far as I can tell
from this badly-written page, the only solution is for Demon to change
their SPF rules:
http://www.openspf.org/Best_Practices/Forwarding
Any help would be much appreciated.
system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
system implements Sender Policy Framework. When we pointed this out
to Demon, we got the reply:
"Looking at the email headers and info you have provided the email
that is being rejected is being addressed to X...@YYY.com. This is
going through a mail filtering system emailfiltering.com and then is
being forwarded to your XXX@[DemonAccountName].com via our mail
server. The server is checking the SPF record for eu.blackberry.com,
but can't match it to the IP address used by emailfiltering.com.
We are currently working to turn off the SPF system in the next few
weeks, but the only advice I can give is to
get the forwarding changed.."
(I think the reference to eu.blackberry,com is a red herring, you get
the same bounce from any sender).
Does anyone have any clue what to do? The SPF website is just about
the most incomprehensible I've ever seen, but as far as I can tell
from this badly-written page, the only solution is for Demon to change
their SPF rules:
http://www.openspf.org/Best_Practices/Forwarding
Any help would be much appreciated.
Cliff Frisby
May 2, 2012, 1:34:08 PM5/2/12
to
Richard Nabavi wrote:
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
It there any configuration option at the forwarder (i.e. at
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
emailfiltering.com, I presume) to enable that 'Sender Rewriting' thingy?
Richard Nabavi
May 2, 2012, 2:22:32 PM5/2/12
to
server in another company with which we do business.
To be honest, I'm unclear which system does what in this (the SPF
documentation is as clear as mud). The only thing I do know for sure
is that the only thing which has changed is at the Demon end. One
might have expected Demon to (a) have warned that this might happen,
and (b) have some suggestion as to what to do about it. Having looked
a bit more, it very much seems to me as though they've failed to
follow the SPF guidelines: from the page I linked to above:
"Even a large ISP can do it. They might complain that they do not know
what forwarders their users have set up. Maybe so, but they can:
- provide a web-based configuration page to list forwarders.
- default to not reject messages that fail SPF for users who have
not configured their forwarders (but still add the "Received-SPF"
header).
- give users who have configured their forwarders the option of
rejecting messages that fail SPF."
I'm sure there will be hundreds of Demon users who get caught by this
in the migration.
I'll try emailing Demon again to see if they have any better answer
than 'we might switch off SPF in a few weeks', but I'm not optimistic.
Thanks for the response BTW!
Richard
Joe
May 2, 2012, 5:49:22 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 2 May 2012 06:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> We are currently working to turn off the SPF system in the next few
> weeks, but the only advice I can give is to
> get the forwarding changed.."
>
There's no excuse for that. SPF is something Microsoft is pushing, but
Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> We are currently working to turn off the SPF system in the next few
> weeks, but the only advice I can give is to
> get the forwarding changed.."
>
it is by no means widely used yet. I don't have a tame Exchange 2010 I
can play with, but 2007 certainly doesn't bounce using SPF by default,
it just makes rude comments in the headers when SPF doesn't exist.
Why is Demon using software in which none of their staff have basic
competence? I have no official training in Exchange, but I'm damn
certain if something optional about it was upsetting my customers I'd
make it stop fairly abruptly, externally hosted or not.
--
Joe
Message has been deleted
Martin Brown
May 3, 2012, 3:36:01 AM5/3/12
to
On 03/05/2012 08:00, Mike Henry wrote:
> In<20120502224...@jretrading.com>, Joe<j...@jretrading.com>
> the staff that understood the old system were gone, and this new system
> would have so much better support because it was more "mainstream".
But you still have the problem that all the technical staff that knew
what they are doing are long gone. What remains is the accounts dept. :(
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
> In<20120502224...@jretrading.com>, Joe<j...@jretrading.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why is Demon using software in which none of their staff have basic
>> competence?
>
> Funny that one of the reasons for the whole move, was the claim that all
>
>> Why is Demon using software in which none of their staff have basic
>> competence?
>
> the staff that understood the old system were gone, and this new system
> would have so much better support because it was more "mainstream".
But you still have the problem that all the technical staff that knew
what they are doing are long gone. What remains is the accounts dept. :(
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
DaveB
May 3, 2012, 5:04:14 AM5/3/12
to
In article <mzqor.19397$8_6....@newsfe09.iad>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
Yes, but "Bean Counters" rule the universe...
Dave B.
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
Dave B.
Stephen Wolstenholme
May 3, 2012, 5:20:09 AM5/3/12
to
Steve
--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com
Nix
May 3, 2012, 5:40:24 AM5/3/12
to
On 2 May 2012, j...@jretrading.com told this:
bump up the reliability scale in antispam software.
Nobody sane uses an SPF failure as a unilateral reason to reject an
email, just as a slight increase in P(spam) -- and even that is now
mostly moot due to the spammers using SPF as well.
It's a useful forgery detector, but it turns out that 'is this email
forged?' is both not a very useful indicator of spam (though it *is* of
phishing) and breaks enough long-standing uses of email -- forwarding
without special client support for SPF, mailing lists -- that it is, on
the whole, no use.
> Why is Demon using software in which none of their staff have basic
> competence?
If they're bouncing just on SPF failure the people running their mail
system are nincompoops with no experience in running mail systems (or,
at least, if they *have* experience it is more than five years old and
so may as well be obsolete). I appear to have garnered more knowledge
than them just by running an SMTP server for a single person and hanging
around on a couple of antispam mailing lists...
--
NULL && (void)
> There's no excuse for that. SPF is something Microsoft is pushing, but
> it is by no means widely used yet. I don't have a tame Exchange 2010 I
> can play with, but 2007 certainly doesn't bounce using SPF by default,
> it just makes rude comments in the headers when SPF doesn't exist.
It is widely used! A lot of spammers use valid SPF to give their spam a
> it is by no means widely used yet. I don't have a tame Exchange 2010 I
> can play with, but 2007 certainly doesn't bounce using SPF by default,
> it just makes rude comments in the headers when SPF doesn't exist.
bump up the reliability scale in antispam software.
Nobody sane uses an SPF failure as a unilateral reason to reject an
email, just as a slight increase in P(spam) -- and even that is now
mostly moot due to the spammers using SPF as well.
It's a useful forgery detector, but it turns out that 'is this email
forged?' is both not a very useful indicator of spam (though it *is* of
phishing) and breaks enough long-standing uses of email -- forwarding
without special client support for SPF, mailing lists -- that it is, on
the whole, no use.
> Why is Demon using software in which none of their staff have basic
> competence?
system are nincompoops with no experience in running mail systems (or,
at least, if they *have* experience it is more than five years old and
so may as well be obsolete). I appear to have garnered more knowledge
than them just by running an SMTP server for a single person and hanging
around on a couple of antispam mailing lists...
--
NULL && (void)
John Hall
May 5, 2012, 6:19:45 AM5/5/12
to
In article
<abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
<abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>
>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
<snip>
>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>
>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>
>Any help would be much appreciated.
Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>Any help would be much appreciated.
issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
Adrian
May 5, 2012, 6:51:41 AM5/5/12
to
In message <xkfsnwAB...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
that their service or explanations are rather less than adequate, I
suspect that they are doing the internet equivalent of sitting with
their fingers in their ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you".
Eventually the customers will give up and go elsewhere, thus (no pun
intended) solving the problem. This could of course lead to increased
unemployment.
Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
As many of the posts on the forum (spam aside) seem to be telling them
>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
that their service or explanations are rather less than adequate, I
suspect that they are doing the internet equivalent of sitting with
their fingers in their ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you".
Eventually the customers will give up and go elsewhere, thus (no pun
intended) solving the problem. This could of course lead to increased
unemployment.
Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
Stephen Wolstenholme
May 5, 2012, 7:13:40 AM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article
><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>
>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>
><snip>
>>
>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>
>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In article
><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>
>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>
><snip>
>>
>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>
>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
Demon help desk 0845 272 2444
Tech support 0845 272 0044 3/1
Service Status 0800 027 0384
Wm...
May 5, 2012, 1:09:03 PM5/5/12
to
Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 <xkfsnwAB...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>
demon.service John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article
><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>
>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>
><snip>
>>
>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>
>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
I think I'm about to give in ... I had a look this evening ... just a
glance, you know.
>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
demon.service John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article
><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>
>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>
><snip>
>>
>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>
>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
glance, you know.
>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Adrian
May 5, 2012, 1:53:16 PM5/5/12
to
In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
>web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
>
Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
>web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
>
Wm...
May 5, 2012, 1:21:49 PM5/5/12
to
Sat, 5 May 2012 12:13:40 <ee2aq75pajnj0584f...@4ax.com>
demon.service Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com>
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>
>>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
>
>Demon help desk 0845 272 2444
>Tech support 0845 272 0044 3/1
>Service Status 0800 027 0384
Ooooo, Kaaaaay, what do you suggest we ask for?
demon.service Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com>
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>
>>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
>
>Demon help desk 0845 272 2444
>Tech support 0845 272 0044 3/1
>Service Status 0800 027 0384
Wm...
May 5, 2012, 2:05:10 PM5/5/12
to
Sat, 5 May 2012 18:53:16 <Yj2eMGDM...@ku.gro.lloiff> demon.service
Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
>In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
>>web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
>>
>
>Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
What sort of thing have I missed?
Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
>In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
>>web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
>>
>
>Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
Adrian
May 5, 2012, 2:20:34 PM5/5/12
to
In message <zN4QN6FWvWpPFwJL@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
languages (froggish and Chinese I think).
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>Sat, 5 May 2012 18:53:16 <Yj2eMGDM...@ku.gro.lloiff> demon.service
>Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
>
>>In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>>>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
>>>web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
>>>
>>
>>Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
>
>What sort of thing have I missed?
>
I don't know as I didn't look, but the subjects were in foreign
>Sat, 5 May 2012 18:53:16 <Yj2eMGDM...@ku.gro.lloiff> demon.service
>Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
>
>>In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>>>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has spam on
>>>web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-defined?
>>>
>>
>>Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
>
>What sort of thing have I missed?
>
languages (froggish and Chinese I think).
hugh
May 5, 2012, 2:42:21 PM5/5/12
to
In message <2Tr$JhA9YQ...@ku.gro.lloiff>, Adrian
<bul...@ku.gro.lioff> writes
time they ask for a change and maybe even every time they ask a
question. It's also usually not a good idea to ask one question at a
time but to wait until they can put together a bundle of all questions.
A friend of mine was a telecomms consultant on the Channel tunnel and
when he joined the project asked for a telephone. Because of the above
reason the bloody tunnel was finished before he got his phone!!
--
hugh
<bul...@ku.gro.lioff> writes
>In message <xkfsnwAB...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>As many of the posts on the forum (spam aside) seem to be telling them
>that their service or explanations are rather less than adequate, I
>suspect that they are doing the internet equivalent of sitting with
>their fingers in their ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you".
>Eventually the customers will give up and go elsewhere, thus (no pun
>intended) solving the problem. This could of course lead to increased
>unemployment.
>
>
>Adrian
If they've outsourced t his service then there will be a charge every
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>As many of the posts on the forum (spam aside) seem to be telling them
>that their service or explanations are rather less than adequate, I
>suspect that they are doing the internet equivalent of sitting with
>their fingers in their ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you".
>Eventually the customers will give up and go elsewhere, thus (no pun
>intended) solving the problem. This could of course lead to increased
>unemployment.
>
>
>Adrian
time they ask for a change and maybe even every time they ask a
question. It's also usually not a good idea to ask one question at a
time but to wait until they can put together a bundle of all questions.
A friend of mine was a telecomms consultant on the Channel tunnel and
when he joined the project asked for a telephone. Because of the above
reason the bloody tunnel was finished before he got his phone!!
--
hugh
nev young
May 5, 2012, 3:06:44 PM5/5/12
to
If you really want to know I can forward some of them to you
but not on this list.
--
nev
getting the wrong stick end since 1953
John Hall
May 5, 2012, 3:13:06 PM5/5/12
to
In article <4C5G0hEy...@ku.gro.lloiff>,
subjects. Their anti-spambot measure when you register is perhaps
inadequate.
Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff> writes:
>In message <zN4QN6FWvWpPFwJL@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>Sat, 5 May 2012 18:53:16 <Yj2eMGDM...@ku.gro.lloiff>
>>demon.service Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
>>
>>>In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give
>>>>me an example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam?
>>>>Or has spam on web-fora or whatever they are called these
>>>>days been re-defined?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
>>
>>What sort of thing have I missed?
>>
>
>I don't know as I didn't look, but the subjects were in foreign
>languages (froggish and Chinese I think).
>
That's a different lot from the batch that I saw, which had English
>In message <zN4QN6FWvWpPFwJL@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>Sat, 5 May 2012 18:53:16 <Yj2eMGDM...@ku.gro.lloiff>
>>demon.service Adrian <bul...@ku.gro.lioff>
>>
>>>In message <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
>>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give
>>>>me an example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam?
>>>>Or has spam on web-fora or whatever they are called these
>>>>days been re-defined?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Some one has been since this morning and cleared it out.
>>
>>What sort of thing have I missed?
>>
>
>I don't know as I didn't look, but the subjects were in foreign
>languages (froggish and Chinese I think).
>
subjects. Their anti-spambot measure when you register is perhaps
inadequate.
John Hall
May 5, 2012, 3:11:16 PM5/5/12
to
In article <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>,
Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
[re Demon's web forum]
now been deleted, but at least one in an existing thread remains, namely
the currently most recent post to the "Demon Email Management Portal"
thread by "Sophia Green".
Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
[re Demon's web forum]
>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has
>spam on web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-
>defined?
Just had another look, and all the spam posts starting a new thread have
>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has
>spam on web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-
>defined?
now been deleted, but at least one in an existing thread remains, namely
the currently most recent post to the "Demon Email Management Portal"
thread by "Sophia Green".
Wm...
May 5, 2012, 4:54:14 PM5/5/12
to
Sat, 5 May 2012 20:11:16 <w6$i1dCUt...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>
demon.service John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>,
> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>[re Demon's web forum]
>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has
>>spam on web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-
>>defined?
>
>Just had another look, and all the spam posts starting a new thread have
>now been deleted, but at least one in an existing thread remains, namely
>the currently most recent post to the "Demon Email Management Portal"
>thread by "Sophia Green".
I guess Sophia Green's last posting was an advert (I don't like that).
I've read back through the conversation. I see what you mean now,
JohnH.
Yuk.
demon.service John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk>
>In article <bf26pNCv6VpPFwdq@[127.0.0.1]>,
> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>[re Demon's web forum]
>>I didn't see any actual spam in my quick look. Can you give me an
>>example of a thread ^W discussion that includes spam? Or has
>>spam on web-fora or whatever they are called these days been re-
>>defined?
>
>Just had another look, and all the spam posts starting a new thread have
>now been deleted, but at least one in an existing thread remains, namely
>the currently most recent post to the "Demon Email Management Portal"
>thread by "Sophia Green".
I've read back through the conversation. I see what you mean now,
JohnH.
Yuk.
Wm...
May 5, 2012, 5:13:33 PM5/5/12
to
Sat, 5 May 2012 20:06:44 <jo3to5$5dg$1...@dont-email.me> demon.service nev
young <newsforpa...@yahoo.co.uk>
I'd prefer public stuff, TBH
young <newsforpa...@yahoo.co.uk>
nev young
May 6, 2012, 1:49:49 AM5/6/12
to
In fact I would doubt it would get through my NNTP's filters.
Wm...
May 6, 2012, 3:48:29 AM5/6/12
to
Sun, 6 May 2012 06:49:49 <jo53dt$pdh$1...@dont-email.me> demon.service nev
Not a big deal, just curiosity on my part.
young <newsforpa...@yahoo.co.uk>
>On 05/05/12 22:13, Wm... wrote:
>> Sat, 5 May 2012 20:06:44 <jo3to5$5dg$1...@dont-email.me> demon.service nev
>> young <newsforpa...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>>> On 05/05/12 19:05, Wm... wrote:
>
>>>> What sort of thing have I missed?
>>>>
>>> I have hundreds of them in my RSS folder.
>>> If you really want to know I can forward some of them to you
>>> but not on this list.
>>
>> I'd prefer public stuff, TBH
>>
>Sorry but I won't re-post the rubbish here.
>In fact I would doubt it would get through my NNTP's filters.
I meant a link to the stuff rather than you sending it to me or the ng.
>On 05/05/12 22:13, Wm... wrote:
>> Sat, 5 May 2012 20:06:44 <jo3to5$5dg$1...@dont-email.me> demon.service nev
>> young <newsforpa...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>>> On 05/05/12 19:05, Wm... wrote:
>
>>>> What sort of thing have I missed?
>>>>
>>> I have hundreds of them in my RSS folder.
>>> If you really want to know I can forward some of them to you
>>> but not on this list.
>>
>> I'd prefer public stuff, TBH
>>
>Sorry but I won't re-post the rubbish here.
>In fact I would doubt it would get through my NNTP's filters.
Not a big deal, just curiosity on my part.
nev young
May 6, 2012, 9:33:29 AM5/6/12
to
I just happen to have copies in my RSS feed folder on my PC that I
haven't yet deleted.
I've no doubt there'll be more along tomorrow.
The RSS url is
http://forum.demon.net/rss/topic/new-email-service-coming-soon
John Hall
May 15, 2012, 5:43:58 AM5/15/12
to
In article <ee2aq75pajnj0584f...@4ax.com>,
"Currently, SPF checking on the new platform is enabled, but based on
user feedback and our own testing based on circumstances such as yours,
it is something we're actively looking at in terms of potentially
disabling."
I'm not sure whether that's reassuring, in showing that Demon recognise
that there's a problem, or worrying, in that they don't seem to see it
as urgent enough to have disabled SPF already. Will they perhaps still
be "actively looking" at disabling it in a month or two's time?
Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> writes:
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>
>>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
>
>Demon help desk 0845 272 2444
>Tech support 0845 272 0044 3/1
>Service Status 0800 027 0384
>
>Steve
>
Yesterday I did finally get a response on the web forum. To quote:
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>
>>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
>
>Demon help desk 0845 272 2444
>Tech support 0845 272 0044 3/1
>Service Status 0800 027 0384
>
>Steve
>
"Currently, SPF checking on the new platform is enabled, but based on
user feedback and our own testing based on circumstances such as yours,
it is something we're actively looking at in terms of potentially
disabling."
I'm not sure whether that's reassuring, in showing that Demon recognise
that there's a problem, or worrying, in that they don't seem to see it
as urgent enough to have disabled SPF already. Will they perhaps still
be "actively looking" at disabling it in a month or two's time?
Dave Baxter
May 18, 2012, 4:30:30 AM5/18/12
to
In article <zP6+AsDe...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, nospam_nov03
@jhall.co.uk says...
http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
Episode 353 "DMARC eMail Security"
(Including a description of SPF etc, I'm only part way through it, but
will complete listeing later today, while driving to a customer, and
back.)
There are three forms of text transcript of the audio podcast too so
fully searchable.
I Also had this recently sent to my "Postmaster" address...
<Quote>
Dear Customer,
You may recall our recent communication regarding the up-coming
migration to our new email service. We 're pleased to advise you that
we've now begun the migration process which means you will soon receive
an email from us containing important information such as:- your actual
migration date, the migration process and the small changes that you
will need to make to start enjoying the benefits of our new service.
Below is a quick reminder of the key benefits:
* Microsoft Outlook Web Access
* Demon Mail Management Portal allows you to manage your users
* Fully resilient platform providing greater stability and performance
For the latest information and Frequently Asked Questions regarding the
migration to the new service please visit the Demon Knowledgebase where
you will find information on the Mail Migration, Configuration Settings
and the new Email Management Portal.
Demon, a brand of THUS Ltd.
</Quote>
And "Outlook Web Access" is suposed to be a "key benefit"? It's more
functional than the existing web interface, but at what cost...
I rarely use the web interface anyway, all email to/from me goes via way
of a mail client of one form or another.
As for "key benefit" #three. Only time will tell.
Dave B.
@jhall.co.uk says...
>
> Yesterday I did finally get a response on the web forum. To quote:
>
> "Currently, SPF checking on the new platform is enabled, but based on
> user feedback and our own testing based on circumstances such as yours,
> it is something we're actively looking at in terms of potentially
> disabling."
>
> I'm not sure whether that's reassuring, in showing that Demon recognise
> that there's a problem, or worrying, in that they don't seem to see it
> as urgent enough to have disabled SPF already. Will they perhaps still
> be "actively looking" at disabling it in a month or two's time?
Maybe they need to listen to this:-
> Yesterday I did finally get a response on the web forum. To quote:
>
> "Currently, SPF checking on the new platform is enabled, but based on
> user feedback and our own testing based on circumstances such as yours,
> it is something we're actively looking at in terms of potentially
> disabling."
>
> I'm not sure whether that's reassuring, in showing that Demon recognise
> that there's a problem, or worrying, in that they don't seem to see it
> as urgent enough to have disabled SPF already. Will they perhaps still
> be "actively looking" at disabling it in a month or two's time?
http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
Episode 353 "DMARC eMail Security"
(Including a description of SPF etc, I'm only part way through it, but
will complete listeing later today, while driving to a customer, and
back.)
There are three forms of text transcript of the audio podcast too so
fully searchable.
I Also had this recently sent to my "Postmaster" address...
<Quote>
Dear Customer,
You may recall our recent communication regarding the up-coming
migration to our new email service. We 're pleased to advise you that
we've now begun the migration process which means you will soon receive
an email from us containing important information such as:- your actual
migration date, the migration process and the small changes that you
will need to make to start enjoying the benefits of our new service.
Below is a quick reminder of the key benefits:
* Microsoft Outlook Web Access
* Demon Mail Management Portal allows you to manage your users
* Fully resilient platform providing greater stability and performance
For the latest information and Frequently Asked Questions regarding the
migration to the new service please visit the Demon Knowledgebase where
you will find information on the Mail Migration, Configuration Settings
and the new Email Management Portal.
Demon, a brand of THUS Ltd.
</Quote>
And "Outlook Web Access" is suposed to be a "key benefit"? It's more
functional than the existing web interface, but at what cost...
I rarely use the web interface anyway, all email to/from me goes via way
of a mail client of one form or another.
As for "key benefit" #three. Only time will tell.
Dave B.
John Hall
Sep 18, 2012, 2:22:29 PM9/18/12
to
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>
>>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
<snip>
><nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article
>><abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>
>>>These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>>Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>(Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
>
>This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
Somewhat belatedly responding, but it's a convenient place to add this.
The continued complaints about Demon's implementation of SPF made by
various people on their web forum seem at last to have borne fruit. It's
going to be possible for people to opt out. See posts to the forum by
the Demon staffer "Chris" for details.
--
John Hall
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2
Ticker Berkin
Sep 18, 2012, 3:57:29 PM9/18/12
to
disabled. This is done by putting a couple of new machines
(mx5/6.demon.co.uk) in the MX list with lower priority number; these
don't do the SPF checks
--
Ticker
Martin Brown
Sep 18, 2012, 4:17:10 PM9/18/12
to
On 18/09/2012 19:22, John Hall wrote:
> In article <ee2aq75pajnj0584f...@4ax.com>,
> Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
>> <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>> There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>> system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>> case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>> work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>>
>>>> These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>> system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>> issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>> (Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>> well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
Good to know that they are proficient at running a closed forum then :(
> In article <ee2aq75pajnj0584f...@4ax.com>,
> Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:19:45 +0100, John Hall
>> <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <abb108d8-d1b6-4929...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Richard Nabavi <micr...@microapl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>> There appears to be a significant problem with Demon's new email
>>>> system if you rely on messages forwarded from another server (in the
>>>> case I'm looking at, emails sent to a server at an organisation we
>>>> work closely with and forwarded to the Demon account),
>>>>
>>>> These forwarded messages are being bounced because the new email
>>>> system implements Sender Policy Framework.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Since Demon staff no longer seem to read this newsgroup, I've raised the
>>> issue on their web forum at http://forum.demon.net/
>>> (Though Demon staff seem to be reading the forum less and less often as
>>> well, and at present it's being overwhelmed by spam posts.)
I am starting to hate the latest generation of Captcha. I can't do about
half of them and some forums I visit have defective scripting that
crashes losing all input if you get it wrong :(((
Most times I remember to put my input into the paste buffer first...
>> This newsgroup and the forum are both a waste of time. The only way to
>> get through to Demon is by phone and even then it can be a fight.
> <snip>
>
> Somewhat belatedly responding, but it's a convenient place to add this.
>
> The continued complaints about Demon's implementation of SPF made by
> various people on their web forum seem at last to have borne fruit. It's
> going to be possible for people to opt out. See posts to the forum by
> the Demon staffer "Chris" for details.
electrostatic prayer mat to get this sorted out then?
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Hall
Sep 18, 2012, 5:11:26 PM9/18/12
to
In article <dF46s.1208$2o1...@newsfe08.iad>,
If you've been migrated, then you just have to ask Demon to fix it for
you. This can probably most easily done by using the forum's PM facility
to PM Chris. Emailing New...@demon.net would probably also work.
you. This can probably most easily done by using the forum's PM facility
to PM Chris. Emailing New...@demon.net would probably also work.
Cliff Frisby
Sep 20, 2012, 6:29:34 AM9/20/12
to
Ticker Berkin wrote:
>
> Demon support have fixed my domain so that inbound SPF checking is
> disabled. This is done by putting a couple of new machines
> (mx5/6.demon.co.uk) in the MX list with lower priority number; these
> don't do the SPF checks
>
Given that Demon can accommodate the setup described above, perhaps it would
>
> Demon support have fixed my domain so that inbound SPF checking is
> disabled. This is done by putting a couple of new machines
> (mx5/6.demon.co.uk) in the MX list with lower priority number; these
> don't do the SPF checks
>
be equally amenable to adding the customers's hostname in as the lowest
priority MX, for those customers who would prefer that.
Richard_C
Sep 20, 2012, 6:54:32 AM9/20/12
to
is" mantra all summer.
Having set up alternatives (couldn't live with SPF bounces for 4 months)
I wonder if I can and should now revert to pointing all incoming at
Demon? It would reduce the number of POP3 collect sessions and probably
ease my internal routing complexity.
I am reluctant to try it out too soon because post migration one of my
important customers was getting bounce messages and grumbling. I don't
want to risk going through that loop again. Any user feedback saying if
it works or not would be reassuring.
0 new messages