Incoming emails rejected by Demon

[Paul Wolff]

SPF filtering has been turned off on my Demon account, so I was
surprised to find another client unable to email me.

This is the error message they received, which they were able to forward
to me through a fall-back account that I'd set up with BT Internet:

mdfmta012.tch.inty.net rejected your message to the following
e-mail addresses:

pa...@wolff.co.uk<mailto:pa...@wolff.co.uk>

mdfmta012.tch.inty.net gave this error:
<edw...@heips.com>: Sender address rejected: "invalid" TLD in MX
record

Your message wasn't delivered due to a permission or security
issue. It may have been rejected by a moderator, the address may
only accept e-mail from certain senders, or another restriction
may be preventing delivery.

I asked Demon if they'd turned SPF filtering back on, and this is what
they said:

This is not down to an SPF issue unfortunately. This is due to
the presence of invalid mx records on the senders domain. They
will need to remove this invalid record before the problem will
resolve.

At this point, I just infer that Demon have an aggressive policy of not
accepting mail in some cases even though other ISPs would accept it.
Good or bad, I don't know, but certainly a hindrance to doing business.
Luckily I had the alternative account in place and could take delivery
of the dozen urgent files by that other means.
--
Paul

[Jim Crowther]

In demon.service, on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:44:08, Paul Wolff wrote:

>SPF filtering has been turned off on my Demon account, so I was
>surprised to find another client unable to email me.
>
>This is the error message they received, which they were able to
>forward to me through a fall-back account that I'd set up with BT
>Internet:
>
> mdfmta012.tch.inty.net rejected your message to the following
> e-mail addresses:
>
> pa...@wolff.co.uk<mailto:pa...@wolff.co.uk>
>
> mdfmta012.tch.inty.net gave this error:
> <edw...@heips.com>: Sender address rejected: "invalid" TLD in MX
> record

[]

Yet another MS cock-up. Your thwarted correspondent is with BT, has
switched to MS Office 365, which requires the invalid domain MX entry to
verify the domain in the first place (it can later be removed). MS
Exchange however, as implemented by Inty, thinks this is a reason for
rejection.

Get your correspondent to remove their priory 50 MX record, as Demon
won't be the only ISP using such a silly rejection premise:
------------
heips.com MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 1 heips-com.mail.eo.outlook.com
heips.com MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 50 ms45250701.msv1.invalid
heips.com MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 10 ibmr.btconnect.com
------------

--
Jim Crowther

[Martin Brown]

On 16/04/2013 16:31, Jim Crowther wrote:
> In demon.service, on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:44:08, Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>> SPF filtering has been turned off on my Demon account, so I was
>> surprised to find another client unable to email me.
>>
>> This is the error message they received, which they were able to
>> forward to me through a fall-back account that I'd set up with BT
>> Internet:
>>
>> mdfmta012.tch.inty.net rejected your message to the following
>> e-mail addresses:
>>
>> pa...@wolff.co.uk<mailto:pa...@wolff.co.uk>
>>
>> mdfmta012.tch.inty.net gave this error:
>> <edw...@heips.com>: Sender address rejected: "invalid" TLD in MX
>> record
> []
>
> Yet another MS cock-up. Your thwarted correspondent is with BT, has

That *is* interesting as I have seen a couple of people have BT mails to
me bounced without obvious cause CC'd to me at another account no
problem. Never seen headers though only phone report that it did.

> switched to MS Office 365, which requires the invalid domain MX entry to
> verify the domain in the first place (it can later be removed). MS
> Exchange however, as implemented by Inty, thinks this is a reason for
> rejection.
>
> Get your correspondent to remove their priory 50 MX record, as Demon
> won't be the only ISP using such a silly rejection premise:
> ------------
> heips.com MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 1 heips-com.mail.eo.outlook.com
> heips.com MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 50 ms45250701.msv1.invalid
> heips.com MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 10 ibmr.btconnect.com
> ------------

I may be being a bit thick here but why do two different Microsoft
implementations have to abuse MX records in incompatible ways?

I presume the wacky low priority MX .invalid record is to prove that you
have access rights to alter it or something.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Paul Wolff]

Thanks for shining this light on it; I've passed the advice to my
correspondent.

So the top level domain "invalid" is invalid! Who'd a thunk it.

Paul

In message <OO526ZNk...@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID.invalid>, Jim
Crowther <Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes

Paul