[Mailman-Users] msg marked as spam 554 5.7.1 [P4]

[Jim Dory]

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:56 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen.fw at 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