Forum Discussion
Mail delivery failure
A piece of outgoing mail was (apparently) rejected by the hugshnet mail system. Short version:
This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).
Received-SPF: softfail (smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com: transitional domain hughes.net does not designate 184.53.48.217 as permitted sender)
FWIW, my assigned IP is 184.53.48.9
Long version: here are the headers
From: Mail Delivery System <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mail Delivery Failure
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 06:08:10 -0400
This message was created automatically by the mail system (ecelerity).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>>> [email protected] (while not connected): 554 5.4.7 [internal] exceeded max retries without delivery
------ This is a copy of the headers of the original message. ------
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
X-Authed-Username: Z2VvZmZAaHVnaGVzLm5ldA==
X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Zb69TphA c=1 sm=0 tr=0 a=alMjyCJoxyUBoW4irxABtg==:117 a=alMjyCJoxyUBoW4irxABtg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=g-rBkFOlAAAA:8 a=inrySznMs_wvFKEwMCYA:9 a=N4bSDcBWTFA8dNBa:21 a=7gj18nmP-8DkfkB9:21 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=-qui4eJqTRsA:10 a=yfmmBuS0vy3znAOsZFac:22
X-CM-Score: 0
X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine
Authentication-Results: smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com [email protected]; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail
Authentication-Results: smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com [email protected]; sender-id=softfail
Authentication-Results: smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
Received-SPF: softfail (smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com: transitional domain hughes.net does not designate 184.53.48.217 as permitted sender)
Received: from [184.53.48.217] ([184.53.48.217:31452] helo=puget.mtranch.com)
by smtp.hughes.net (envelope-from <[email protected]>)
(ecelerity 2.2.3.49 r(42060/42061)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES256-SHA)
id F4/1A-21554-15F9B9E5; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 20:46:14 -0400
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:46:01 -0700
From: Geoffrey Leach <[email protected]>
To: "Oriana" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Order Update
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
First, the mx's IP was 184.53.48.217 (your IP doesn't matter, since you're not the email server). It is not discretely listed in the DMARC spec, but may be a part of one of the two includes listed.
Second, a simple host lookup of 184.53.48.217 gives me host1845321748.direcway.com, which might be an alias to smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com, but who knows.
Finally, it looks like almagourmet.com rejected your email on an SPF Softfail when hughes.net has a DMARC record in their DNS, but:
a. no policy is listed (usually set to reject or quarantine if there is an SPF failure); and
b. The DMARC spec ends with a "~all", which means to softfail any IP that's not listed.Bottom line: Seems like almagormet's settings are a little severe in that they're not following the policy recommendation, nor are they dealing with a softfail correctly.
2 Replies
First, the mx's IP was 184.53.48.217 (your IP doesn't matter, since you're not the email server). It is not discretely listed in the DMARC spec, but may be a part of one of the two includes listed.
Second, a simple host lookup of 184.53.48.217 gives me host1845321748.direcway.com, which might be an alias to smtp02.hughes.cmh.synacor.com, but who knows.
Finally, it looks like almagourmet.com rejected your email on an SPF Softfail when hughes.net has a DMARC record in their DNS, but:
a. no policy is listed (usually set to reject or quarantine if there is an SPF failure); and
b. The DMARC spec ends with a "~all", which means to softfail any IP that's not listed.Bottom line: Seems like almagormet's settings are a little severe in that they're not following the policy recommendation, nor are they dealing with a softfail correctly.
Thanks for the analysis. Very helpful.
