msg marked as spam 554 5.7.1 [P4]
So I'm just a volunteer who doesn't understand much about email systems.. just rudimentary - and I am managing an email list for community announcements and trade, by subscription only. We have about 1500 subscribers.
I have one problem that when a particular user (the city) sends an announcement, it tends to bounce hundreds of mainly one ISP's users.. that ISP being Alaska's GCI.com . Other users, say on hotmail, yahoo, etc.. don't get bounced. I manage the emails via gmail and lately I've been "locked out of gmail due to suspicious email activity" which is a pain in the rear. Also causes my host (Hawkhost) grief.. the overhead they dislike though they haven't complained lately. So I'm motivated to look into this a bit.
Sometimes I do get this: host mx1.arandomserver.com [198.252.100.64] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 550 Headers contain illegal BOM on my personal email from the same sender (city), but not sure that is same issue.
The city usually includes a link to the city codes on a public webpage - perhaps that triggers GCI.
I could post one of the headers in total but it is probably about 3 pages worth. Everything sort of looks ok to me except I notice this: BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [34.212.96.103 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
The link in the messages is https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Nome/ .
I can post more of the header if need be.
Could it be that GCI needs to whitelist or something?
thx, Jim
Jim Dory writes:
I have one problem that when a particular user (the city) sends an announcement, it tends to bounce hundreds of mainly one ISP's users.. that ISP being Alaska's GCI.com .
I assume you mean that the attempt to deliver to users at GCI bounce back to you?
What we would like to see is the delivery service message from GCI which explains why the message is being refused.
Sometimes I do get this: host mx1.arandomserver.com [198.252.100.64] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 550 Headers contain illegal BOM on my personal email from the same sender (city), but not sure that is same issue.
I don't understand. You say it's personal mail *from the city*, but you're getting the bounce message? That should not happen; the bounce message should go to the city.
The city usually includes a link to the city codes on a public webpage - perhaps that triggers GCI.
Are you saying there's a link in the header? Those are common (eg, Mailman can be configured to put certain links in the header), and should not cause problems if correctly formed. Nothing in the content should cause any kind of bounce except a 552 "We don't like your mail for some reason" Administrative Denial (or perhaps another 55x response.
I could post one of the headers in total but it is probably about 3 pages worth.
That's nothing. Don't hesitate. It's much more annoying to have to go back and forth if you send incomplete headers.
Everything sort of looks ok to me except I notice this: BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [34.212.96.103 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
The sentence about querying DNSWL is a bit weird, but I don't think it's a problem. That check was just skipped.
The rest is perfectly normal and is not symptomatic of a problem.
The link in the messages is https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Nome/ .
That link is never going to cause a problem.
I can post more of the header if need be.
Could it be that GCI needs to whitelist or something?
Not enough information. It sounds like either or both the city and GCI have difficulty with email since it's that particular combination, but which one is whack I can't tell without a look at the delivery status notice (bounce message) for the mass bounces. This is often in your mail server's log as well.
Steve
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:56 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Jim Dory writes:
Sometimes I do get this: host mx1.arandomserver.com [198.252.100.64] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 550 Headers contain illegal BOM on my personal email from the same sender (city), but not sure that is same issue.
I don't understand. You say it's personal mail *from the city*, but you're getting the bounce message? That should not happen; the bounce message should go to the city.
I don't think the city would see a bounce because the list accepted their message and a lot of subscribers would see it.. but it was rejected only by one or two other subscriber email providers. That is my understanding anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. I see the bounces as admin for the list. Isn't this proper behavior of the mailman software? It seems that people would complain (or ask about it) if they saw all the bounces caused by one of their messages and they never have.
That's nothing. Don't hesitate. It's much more annoying to have to go back and forth if you send incomplete headers.
Could it be that GCI needs to whitelist or something?
Not enough information. It sounds like either or both the city and GCI have difficulty with email since it's that particular combination, but which one is whack I can't tell without a look at the delivery status notice (bounce message) for the mass bounces. This is often in your mail server's log as well.
Steve, thanks very much for replying and looking at this. I realize now I didn't provide sufficient info and will in the future amend my ways.
I'm going to contact GCI and see if I can get them to either whitelist or clean up a possible mis-configure in their system. Another kind gentlemen from this mailman list contacted me off-list with an offer to help - I sent him the complete header and reject message.. and he felt that there was nothing apparent to warrant an email provider to reject it.
thanks, Jim
I was the off-list person...
This was the actual bounce error from one of the offending messages:
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:
[redacted]@alaskan.com
host inbound.gci.net [69.168.106.130] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 554 5.7.1 [P4] Message blocked due to spam content in the message.
It’s being bounced by some spam rule on CGI.net; it’s a global one so it’s something in their configuration, since none of the other providers are bouncing it, it’s not really recognizable as spam.
(or one user reported it as spam and they took the lazy way out and blocked all the emails from that list address…we have one user who routinely marks email from one list on our domain as ’spam’…then complains that he’s not getting emails from the list…sigh )
On Jan 5, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Jim Dory <james@dorydesign.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:56 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Jim Dory writes:
Sometimes I do get this: host mx1.arandomserver.com [198.252.100.64] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 550 Headers contain illegal BOM on my personal email from the same sender (city), but not sure that is same issue.
I don't understand. You say it's personal mail *from the city*, but you're getting the bounce message? That should not happen; the bounce message should go to the city.
I don't think the city would see a bounce because the list accepted their message and a lot of subscribers would see it.. but it was rejected only by one or two other subscriber email providers. That is my understanding anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. I see the bounces as admin for the list. Isn't this proper behavior of the mailman software? It seems that people would complain (or ask about it) if they saw all the bounces caused by one of their messages and they never have.
That's nothing. Don't hesitate. It's much more annoying to have to go back and forth if you send incomplete headers.
Could it be that GCI needs to whitelist or something?
Not enough information. It sounds like either or both the city and GCI have difficulty with email since it's that particular combination, but which one is whack I can't tell without a look at the delivery status notice (bounce message) for the mass bounces. This is often in your mail server's log as well.
Steve, thanks very much for replying and looking at this. I realize now I didn't provide sufficient info and will in the future amend my ways.
I'm going to contact GCI and see if I can get them to either whitelist or clean up a possible mis-configure in their system. Another kind gentlemen from this mailman list contacted me off-list with an offer to help - I sent him the complete header and reject message.. and he felt that there was nothing apparent to warrant an email provider to reject it.
thanks, Jim
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/johnson%40pharmacy.ari...
-- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
Hi,
I've seen this exact error before with various ISPs. I believe one of them is Centurytel. I assume what's happened is that several ISPs use a certain spam filtering service or app, and that filter is rejecting the messages for some unknown reason. If that's the case, the particular ISP in question probably won't have a clue what's going on. Hopefully they'll care enough to consult with the third-party filtering service.
Jayson
On 1/5/2020 5:23 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
I was the off-list person...
This was the actual bounce error from one of the offending messages:
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:
[redacted]@alaskan.com
hostinbound.gci.net [69.168.106.130] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 554 5.7.1 [P4] Message blocked due to spam content in the message.
It’s being bounced by some spam rule on CGI.net; it’s a global one so it’s something in their configuration, since none of the other providers are bouncing it, it’s not really recognizable as spam.
(or one user reported it as spam and they took the lazy way out and blocked all the emails from that list address…we have one user who routinely marks email from one list on our domain as ’spam’…then complains that he’s not getting emails from the list…sigh )
On Jan 5, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Jim Dory <james@dorydesign.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:56 AM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
Jim Dory writes:
Sometimes I do get this: host mx1.arandomserver.com [198.252.100.64] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 550 Headers contain illegal BOM on my personal email from the same sender (city), but not sure that is same issue. I don't understand. You say it's personal mail *from the city*, but you're getting the bounce message? That should not happen; the bounce message should go to the city.
I don't think the city would see a bounce because the list accepted their message and a lot of subscribers would see it.. but it was rejected only by one or two other subscriber email providers. That is my understanding anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. I see the bounces as admin for the list. Isn't this proper behavior of the mailman software? It seems that people would complain (or ask about it) if they saw all the bounces caused by one of their messages and they never have.
That's nothing. Don't hesitate. It's much more annoying to have to go back and forth if you send incomplete headers.
Could it be that GCI needs to whitelist or something? Not enough information. It sounds like either or both the city and GCI have difficulty with email since it's that particular combination, but which one is whack I can't tell without a look at the delivery status notice (bounce message) for the mass bounces. This is often in your mail server's log as well.
Steve, thanks very much for replying and looking at this. I realize now I didn't provide sufficient info and will in the future amend my ways.
I'm going to contact GCI and see if I can get them to either whitelist or clean up a possible mis-configure in their system. Another kind gentlemen from this mailman list contacted me off-list with an offer to help - I sent him the complete header and reject message.. and he felt that there was nothing apparent to warrant an email provider to reject it.
thanks, Jim
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/johnson%40pharmacy.ari...
Thanks for the update, Bruce!
Bruce Johnson writes:
This was the actual bounce error from one of the offending messages:
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:
[redacted]@alaskan.com
hostinbound.gci.net [69.168.106.130] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 554 5.7.1 [P4] Message blocked due to spam content in the message.
Note to OP: This is different from the message mentioned by you ("550 illegal Unicode BOM in header" or similar). I'd need to see that message's full header to debug that fully, but it sounds like GCI is generally not doing a great job here.
It’s being bounced by some spam rule on CGI.net; it’s a global one so it’s something in their configuration, since none of the other providers are bouncing it, it’s not really recognizable as spam.
Bruce, Looking at your "from" address, I wonder did your message mention pharmaceuticals, conditions, or treatments by name? I know that for a long time my personal filter had an enormous variety of spellings of erectile dysfunction treatments. :-/ Nevertheless, I would say very probably GCI is responsible. Recipient ISPs are very hard problems, as such ISPs generally don't give anywhere near as many damns about lost mail (which they invariably blame on senders and/or mailing lists) as they do about any uptick in spam.
The list should start by opening an issue with GCI, if necessary by mail to postmaster. If they give you "you're not a customer" BS, report that to their users, too (see below). At the same time, I would inform the sender of the mail that's systematically misclassified and ask *them* to open an issue with GCI, and to inform you of any response. Since they're a governmental body according to the OP, they may have more pull than a mailing list with a "mere" X,000 members. If they don't get a timely, responsive answer, or get "not a customer", send a post to the list saying "GCI-based subscribers *are provably* losing certain kinds of list mail on a regular basis, and since it's an automated filter, *may* be losing non-list mail as well. GCI is not cooperating in resolving the problem." Cc: the help desk, or if necessary, postmaster@gci.
If that gets no action, the next step would be to suggest well-behaved competitors to GCI. }:^} (If postmaster@ bounces, this is the first step. ;-)
I agree with Jayson Smith that it's quite possible that GCI is not running its own spam filters, but that's too bad for them. postmaster@GCI is responsible for the health of its mail system by definition, and that includes getting timely action from outsourced service vendors.
I don't think there's much the list can do about this (short of unsubscribing GCI addresses, which is not recommended unless required by law or applicable regulation ;-), as both the sender and the recipients' providers are effectively sovereign in this area, and the message content is apparently innocuous.
Steve
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:21 PM Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
I'd need to see that message's full header to debug that fully, but it sounds like GCI is generally not doing a great job here.
Ok - just for curiosity sake, here is full header. I've <snip>'ed out names. But Bruce and Stephen are probably correct in that I need to contact GCI. I will also put out a request to subscribers of our list to ask that people don't mark these messages as spam. I have done this in the past probably to no avail.. what helps there is getting on email providers' feedback loops where I've been able to solve yahoo.com user problems. But I haven't found one with GCI.
For clarity, I have my email address set as admin that is my own domain hosted on Hawkhost. It is POP3'd to gmail, so that's the first part of the header where gmail gets involved. The list is nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com (the kennelclub just lets us use their domain), also on Hawkhost, who uses arandomserver.com as their DNS server, I believe. Alaskan.com is a GCI.net domain, as well as a few others. GCI is the one blocking these messages from the city to its subscribers. The city domain is nomealaska.org .
Delivered-To: <me>@gmail.com Received: by 2002:ac8:4912:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id e18csp19003587qtq; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:56:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwk2NggdPGoR1J3DEcdLZMVhDU2UAjEn8UBHjRZFns/bzyDwsAyaLWiml3ZpNgU9VgmRWhOKdATxXI= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:d86:: with SMTP id s6mr59784558qti.237.1578081378216; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:56:18 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 198.252.100.64 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com) smtp.mailfrom= mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 198.252.100.64 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com) client-ip=198.252.100.64; Received: by 2002:ac8:7104:: with POP3 id z4mf28611506qto.6; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:56:18 -0800 (PST) X-Gmail-Fetch-Info: james@<snip>.com 1 mail.<snip>.com 110 james@<snip>.com Return-Path: < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com> Delivered-To: james@<snip>.com Received: from lax003.hawkhost.com by lax003.hawkhost.com with LMTP id eJ7WCJSYD15vFQAAva6gig (envelope-from < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com>) for <james@<snip>.com>; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:40:04 -0800 Return-path: < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com> Envelope-to: james@<snip>.com Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:40:04 -0800 Received: from se001.arandomserver.com ([198.252.100.64]:48764) by lax003.hawkhost.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com>) id 1inSnj-0001sJ-TR for james@<snip>.com; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 11:40:04 -0800 Received: from cloud.nomekennelclub.com ([198.252.100.6]) by se001.arandomserver.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com>) id 1inSni-000Hqn-Aw for james@<snip>.com; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 14:40:03 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=35254 helo= cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com) by cloud.nomekennelclub.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com>) id 1inSnh-000IHZ-Gi; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:40:01 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=35252 helo= cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com) by cloud.nomekennelclub.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from < nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com>) id 1inSng-000IHH-Fe for nome-announce-owner@nomekennelclub.com; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:40:00 +0000 Subject: Bounce action notification From: mailman@nomekennelclub.com To: nome-announce-owner@nomekennelclub.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7118919187349444018==" Message-ID: < mailman.423.1578080399.54331.nome-announce_nomekennelclub.com@nomekennelclub.com
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:39:59 +0000 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Trade and Community Announcements <nome-announce.nomekennelclub.com
X-List-Administrivia: yes Errors-To: mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com Sender: Nome-announce < mailman-bounces@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com> X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cloud.nomekennelclub.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - <snip>.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cloud.nomekennelclub.com: acl_c_authenticated_local_user: mailman/mailman X-Authenticated-Sender: cloud.nomekennelclub.com: mailman@cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Authentication-Results: se001.arandomserver.com; dmarc=pass header.from= nomekennelclub.com X-Filter-Label: newsletter X-SpamExperts-Class: whitelisted X-SpamExperts-Evidence: sender X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0c2Pj46HODYmpAMVAv0J1pOpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhV6obGWHmXteYh AHmP4j2Eq5/d0eQJp4TxpTJf6svkibVP3NiT+4ZMbYPeVBF9/B6zInhaVKtf4ZQXxYmGiNzppW2n S6ZASPhDAtQT2fAqIj34CvjpTc5F8owxokd2bs1RcciY2z4hq7SqXAJrAGow5IPAgTtUp75uqlx0 KezvZHUDd+1wd2dHPCUV5YnPqAejHOkshxy4q0pAdH6oJuD11nYrj/NBMmAdcWAnSnLdmEBMC2ZI 2FFWYgXHqY5UJ4/W0yG3jX4dycteGfaWmIWC7DXiCAZcOgRiwuziOrY9Exilk6iLOvzJGCYfseu8 gWUSPCy6JTT+N7cWHQUbdijqdlH7cSh97d6E5oWj68zsWkQu1sXqDo9GKNBkthSl+IlOfogYpg/X B9ovSXzPpGJShj5HONSWRnLaBIvLEQNgbZQZrjjiNtMpY3Y+i/EM3bbRnjZwqkIZ9u6PTog2DRVg vwishGoxFT89bFD2VBjZPnfNBz6C+Mu+hGpwr7PBqmKn7FPKyyngvSmVQaKBrHzPLqesaGON71i/ lzkSA6vCrkgbsiz5qmSISl6qm4DF/bhUC7Ebc2qmp7YiQCEcumyY6kDDzPtXhTYfsGfK+urci+aW O/SZjV84b961KrpPFiB1Mk6EwUJFn55dCacfSJsXodsHRkKKm0/eI/cJVtBzgMInPBGJEqj0P7co Lz3x16q25OwVDz9YWiSIE6UlBHmyBOTxrBhSQ8FaF+kEO3mnzYL2b+yLsLqYHF/fxqeBk+sDLfQm PWfG5h1/k88svc3a1myDoWoANh/p7ZbqfN9Ql3sccBIk1Sag4dKiqCrF8eZZaqiqynGMtha2fjb3 Ot4nDQQag0f4dbi1L9Bosy7v/PlO/LqcegxMSqa2PvYPtY7VZm8w9ixZkv58RakcfXWBTwBZnlU+ Jl6ES1IphMuosSg13G5DPdkqJzeEjrfpxwv2Oi+G2wty43cRSQ8qLbbzwJ6AzCu3B2h2CCsdky5f 0co= X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@se001.arandomserver.com
--===============7118919187349444018== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is a Mailman mailing list bounce action notice:
List: Nome-announce
Member: <snip>@alaskan.com
Action: Subscription bounce score incremented.
Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces.The triggering bounce notice is attached below.
Questions? Contact the Mailman site administrator at mailman@nomekennelclub.com.
--===============7118919187349444018== Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mailnull by cloud.nomekennelclub.com with local (Exim 4.92) id 1inSnf-000IH9-Cx for nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:39:59 +0000 X-Failed-Recipients: <snip>@alaskan.com Auto-Submitted: auto-replied From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@cloud.nomekennelclub.com> To: nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary=1578080399-eximdsn-114499101 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Message-Id: <E1inSnf-000IH9-Cx@cloud.nomekennelclub.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:39:59 +0000
--1578080399-eximdsn-114499101 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
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:
<snip>@alaskan.com host inbound.gci.net [69.168.106.130] SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: 554 5.7.1 [P4] Message blocked due to spam content in the message.
--1578080399-eximdsn-114499101 Content-type: message/delivery-status
--1578080399-eximdsn-114499101 Content-type: message/rfc822
Return-path: <nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=35150 helo= cloud.nomekennelclub.com.cloud.nomekennelclub.com) by cloud.nomekennelclub.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from < nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com>) id 1inSnT-000IG1-8h; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:39:47 +0000 Received: from se001.arandomserver.com ([198.252.100.64]:49018) by cloud.nomekennelclub.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <<snip>@nomealaska.org>) id 1inSnR-000IFu-Md for nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:39:46 +0000 Received: from mail.delivery-4-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com ([34.212.96.103]) by se001.arandomserver.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <<snip>@nomealaska.org>) id 1inSnQ-000HiL-BI for nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com; Fri, 03 Jan 2020 14:39:45 -0500 Received: from ip-172-17-2-162.us-west-2.compute.internal (ip-172-17-2-162.us-west-2.compute.internal [127.0.0.1]) by mail.delivery-4-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47qFbg17WjzWf14 for <nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 19:39:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Sophos-Email-ID: 093ea574cb7a4339800d1e39f9c94899 Received: from mail.nomealaska.org (unknown [67.59.108.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47qFbc4ngrznTWV for <Nome-Announce@nomekennelclub.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 19:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OSBORN1.cn.lan ([::1]) by Osborn1.cn.lan ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:39:39 -0900 To: Nome Announce <Nome-Announce@nomekennelclub.com> Thread-Topic: Community Benefits Share Proposals Due January 9th Thread-Index: AdXCbYZdlZq+N0FNTSa6EYBLNqw8LQ== Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 19:39:38 +0000 Message-ID: <D28717464A42A944B7857AC27E292E35BD4A5826@Osborn1.cn.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.199.1.123] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-LASED-Pver: 0000002 X-Sophos-Email: [us-west-2] Antispam-Engine: 3.4.1, AntispamData: 2020.1.3.191517 X-LASED-SpamProbabilty: 0.081286 X-LASED-Hits: BODYTEXTH_SIZE_10000_LESS 0.000000, BODYTEXTH_SIZE_3000_MORE 0.000000, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0.000000, BODY_SIZE_5000_5999 0.000000, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0.000000, HREF_LABEL_TEXT_ONLY 0.000000, HTML_70_90 0.100000, KNOWN_MSGID 0.000000, OUTBOUND 0.000000, OUTBOUND_SOPHOS 0.000000, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0.000000, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0.000000, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.050000, WEBMAIL_SOURCE 0.000000, WEBMAIL_XOIP 0.000000, WEBMAIL_X_IP_HDR 0.000000, __ANY_URI 0.000000, __BODY_NO_MAILTO 0.000000, __BODY_TEXT_X4 0.000000, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0.000000, __CT 0.000000, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0.000000, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0.000000, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0.000000, __HAS_FROM 0.000000, __HAS_HTML 0.000000, __HAS_MSGID 0.000000, __HAS_XOIP 0.000000, __HREF_LABEL_TEXT 0.000000, __HREF_LABEL_URI 0.000000, __HTML_AHREF_TAG 0.000000, __HTML_TAG_DIV 0.000000, __HTTPS_URI 0.000000, __IMS_MSGID 0.000000, __MIME_HTML 0.000000, __MIME_TEXT_H 0.000000, __MIME_TEXT_H1 0.000000, __MIME_TEXT_H2 0.000000, __MIME_TEXT_P 0.000000, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0.000000, __MIME_TEXT_P2 0.000000, __MIME_VERSION 0.000000, __MULTIPLE_URI_HTML 0.000000, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0.000000, __SANE_MSGID 0.000000, __STYLE_RATWARE_NEG 0.000000, __STYLE_TAG 0.000000, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0.000000, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0.000000, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0.000000, __TO_NAME 0.000000, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0.000000, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0.000000, __URI_IN_BODY 0.000000, __URI_NOT_IMG 0.000000, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0.000000, __URI_NS 0.000000, __URI_WITHOUT_PATH 0.000000, __URI_WITH_PATH 0.000000 X-LASED-Authed: 1 X-LASED-Spam: NonSpam Received-SPF: pass (se001.arandomserver.com: domain of nomealaska.org designates 34.212.96.103 as permitted sender) client-ip=34.212.96.103; envelope-from=<snip>@nomealaska.org; helo= mail.delivery-4-us-west-2.prod.hydra.sophos.com; X-SPF-Result: se001.arandomserver.com: domain of nomealaska.org designates 34.212.96.103 as permitted sender Authentication-Results: se001.arandomserver.com; dmarc=pass header.from= nomealaska.org Authentication-Results: arandomserver.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=<snip>@ nomealaska.org X-SpamExperts-Class: whitelisted X-SpamExperts-Evidence: recipient X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0c2Pj46HODYmpAMVAv0J1pOpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVz4430uhYEAks X1w7WrWJIbAzHTGDSgSjQibbuaLsHgQfIHNbbhu5Jo+JL+C3bIUp0qRiSaRjfl4miP6LoQ4WjdKu nWXPO9t8lla9EjtrBMQdshjed0ulRpFkgAewkZiS5qKmVilAhlIqutZW2YLmn2a5oeSOtBki+F5I niDEug7X8GBK2+FCvMRX/exKBeIM9UHslcVUQPXc7RxsFltix+/Xn0pY/wWW7xfEbTwPHIgb8HFM 0h0hSAzrBBvn4GAtQfM9+qCEAyQExvyKY4W3iNgF9feD4yS5QvbyIp8rc3wgtdfpUoTshHiwMYu5 p1EI2VFtzUnBgJnEoLqjHcvWPWr9MqwvBg3kVh6skm3bYMFutRPMd4ie25IhJYnEjdNZ/8tAUFWW CkYm3LxAu7IzZJS8NstuqK+uxo87Hos9CiJIj47XQhA/8/ezXvaI7PEoPd0rEuGjFyZoidhtHm+W oT3uFOguAjnmORAgpq0OUrCzCjBSaSJjQlB2l/TAO94yybxQmwA+8NxVIq0MJiSKg9jlDHh8k6TT dHl8m1/8O/8sbUFIE3GR+VmWiSaV6wW6uss4LY88kOm6pUVzg5JaInDNwnqcC4drj2M7j5mMJvsB IkUL/j1Y48GvmeURQjjE1tBzCVvl8dH0j7GWn/qD6plCwXRq+WA468hSYTf7abBoGGIOJNjaglHb 6GMpHiXt/wc1v/QUNTHjXTcKDVfEEkStKzRfejKhNzyP+juq6XEgRrbXfWxmRS1HBwy3RcsTHxV+ fpNOPuJs4tyjllYviRRA5tACfY8moSOqVevk8OCcTD53rSwSTIedTYkUaByAjS280r/O32VBX9Mk 2gw+m5oiu8eNlY3cwoWTHujvw4kpjSRxYDnqEE9xgrMnp9w/n5DgwlbrHOL055PTfStjkEJ4KU+6 OgHFhvdX/qVI+vy5cphnkf+EuIHDfh+Krh33bW4kjbOXAqIuk+RgRq1OB/7ZrX6ecBRcEwpbz0rS MrTeNHk15VolAGHS5rCXQKDybV9zdb1vHXfXDHeWzX7dVt/I6s7aah4jjyh8hwRvEUc= X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@se001.arandomserver.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 X-Spam-Score: -18 X-Spam-Bar: - X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system " cloud.nomekennelclub.com", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see root\@localhost for details. Content preview: The Nome City Council is soliciting funding proposals for the 2019 NSEDC community benefits share. Proposals received will be presented to the City Council at a work session at 5:00 PM on Monday Janua [...] Content analysis details: (-1.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [34.212.96.103 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Spam-Flag: NO Subject: [NA] Community Benefits Share Proposals Due January 9th X-BeenThere: nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Trade and Community Announcements <nome-announce.nomekennelclub.com
List-Unsubscribe: < http://nomekennelclub.com/mailman/options/nome-announce_nomekennelclub.com>, <mailto:nome-announce-request@nomekennelclub.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: < http://nomekennelclub.com/mailman/private/nome-announce_nomekennelclub.com/> List-Post: <mailto:nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com> List-Help: <mailto:nome-announce-request@nomekennelclub.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: < http://nomekennelclub.com/mailman/listinfo/nome-announce_nomekennelclub.com>, <mailto:nome-announce-request@nomekennelclub.com?subject=subscribe> From: Bryant <snip> via Nome-announce <nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com> Reply-To: Bryant <snip> <<snip>@nomealaska.org> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3120893443203709838==" Errors-To: nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com Sender: Nome-announce <nome-announce-bounces@nomekennelclub.com>
--===============3120893443203709838== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D28717464A42A944B7857AC27E292E35BD4A5826Osborn1cnlan_"
--_000_D28717464A42A944B7857AC27E292E35BD4A5826Osborn1cnlan_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Nome City Council is soliciting funding proposals for the 2019 NSEDC co= mmunity benefits share. Proposals received will be presented to the City Co= uncil at a work session at 5:00 PM on Monday January 13th. Applicants will = have a chance to present their proposals and answer questions during the wo= rk session. Please include a detailed narrative describing the proposed use of the fund= s requested and a budget detailing how the funds will be spent. Proposals are due at the City Clerk's Office by the close of business on Th= ursday January 9, 2020. Please contact the Clerk's Office at 443-6663 with any questions.
Bryant <snip> City Clerk (907) 443-6663
www.nomealaska.org<http://www.nomealaska.org/> Nome Code of Ordinances available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Nome/
--_000_D28717464A42A944B7857AC27E292E35BD4A5826Osborn1cnlan_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m=3D"http://schema= s.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html= 40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face =09{font-family:"Cambria Math"; =09panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face =09{font-family:Calibri; =09panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face =09{font-family:Garamond; =09panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;} @font-face =09{font-family:"Lao UI";} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal =09{margin:0in; =09margin-bottom:.0001pt; =09font-size:11.0pt; =09font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink =09{mso-style-priority:99; =09color:#0563C1; =09text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed =09{mso-style-priority:99; =09color:#954F72; =09text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 =09{mso-style-type:personal-compose; =09font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; =09color:windowtext;} .MsoChpDefault =09{mso-style-type:export-only; =09font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} @page WordSection1 =09{size:8.5in 11.0in; =09margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 =09{page:WordSection1;} --></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"#0563C1" vlink=3D"#954F72"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a= lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:26.0pt;font-family:"Lao UI"">Th= e Nome City Council is soliciting funding proposals for the <b>2019 NSEDC community benefits share</b>. Proposals received will be pres= ented to the City Council at a work session at 5:00 PM on Monday January 13= <sup>th</sup>. Applicants will have a chance to present their proposals and= answer questions during the work session. </span><span style=3D"font-size:26.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a= lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-size:26.0pt;font-family:"Lao UI"">Pl= ease include a detailed narrative describing the proposed use of the funds = requested and a budget detailing how the funds will be spent. </span><span style=3D"font-size:26.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a= lt:auto"><b><u><span style=3D"font-size:26.0pt;font-family:"Lao UI&quo= t;">Proposals are due</span></u></b><span style=3D"font-size:26.0pt;font-fa= mily:"Lao UI""> at the City Clerk’s Office by the close of business on <b><u>Thursday January 9, 2020.</u></b></span><span s= tyle=3D"font-size:26.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a= lt:auto"><span style=3D"font-family:"Lao UI"">Please contact the = Clerk’s Office at 443-6663 with any questions. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Ga= ramond",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Ga= ramond",serif">Bryant <snip> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">City Clerk<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">(907) 443-6663<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a href=3D"http://www.nomealaska.org/">www.nomealask= a.org</a> <o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Nome Code of Ordinances available at: <o:p></o:p></p=
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a href=3D"https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Nome/">= https://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Nome/</a><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> </body> </html>
--_000_D28717464A42A944B7857AC27E292E35BD4A5826Osborn1cnlan_-- --===============3120893443203709838== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Nome-announce mailing list Nome-announce@nomekennelclub.com UNSUBSCRIBE, user settings, archives, and UNSUBSCRIBE here: http://nomekennelclub.com/mailman/listinfo/nome-announce_nomekennelclub.com
--===============3120893443203709838==--
--1578080399-eximdsn-114499101--
--===============7118919187349444018==--
participants (4)
-
Bruce Johnson -
Jayson Smith -
Jim Dory -
Stephen J. Turnbull