• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

PM alerts via email

Lutiana

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
3,286
Location
Dublin, CA USA
Test came through fine.
Ok, so this means that the email subsystem on the forum is working as expected, but whatever system is used to trigged the events does not seem to be actually generating the emails and/or getting them over to the email subsystem to send.

I am going to send you a PM, but before I do, can you confirm that you have the email alert set for this and let me know?
 

skate323k137

Experienced Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2022
Messages
228
Location
Michigan
The last message I did get has issues.

spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning b*******@syssrc.com does not designate 184.72.217.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=b*******@syssrc.com
Return-Path: <********syssrc.com>
Received: from forum.vcfed.org (forum.vcfed.org. [184.72.217.124])

The SPF for vcfed.org site includes its A record, so that is good, but syssrc.com has a massive SPF record. If that domain is still involved its SPF should be checked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pepinno

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
594
Location
Barcelona
I'm getting fine this forum's emails, these are the headers for the last one I got:
Code:
Return-Path: 0100018bc2c0a1bb-2d98f059-805f-4806-8774-e931d7489c9c-000000@amazonses.com
X-Original-To: pepinno@example.com
Delivered-To: pepinno@example.com
X-Greylist: delayed 328 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at gran; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 10:03:36 CET
Received-SPF: pass (amazonses.com: 54.240.8.61 is authorized to use
'0100018bc2c0a1bb-2d98f059-805f-4806-8774-e931d7489c9c-000000@amazonses.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'ip4:54.240.0.0/18'
matched)) receiver=gran.example.com; identity=mfrom;
envelope-from="0100018bc2c0a1bb-2d98f059-805f-4806-8774-e931d7489c9c-000000@amazonses.com"; helo=a8-61.smtp-out.amazonses.com;
client-ip=54.240.8.61
Received: from a8-61.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-61.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.61])
        (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by gran.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A4C12AA
        for <pepinno@example.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 10:03:36 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple;
        s=x6zdejh3o22cdzb7ebpxydeborf6zzoo; d=vcfed.org; t=1699779486;
        h=Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
        bh=nC+I2fpY9U773xaPcv4mvRaTivebo0Ynk3EitYfzLe0=;
        b=DAfVW94Ev5GdAeXlYIoJqh2lP65e8p0e/Pz1GqeKAGKUo3Icz491ariqsHU5Zxr2
        ENCQL5SM9MHxGeXit1NxFdTv2b/nd9qrGwVse8Z+3BdSNakKVgKjVvHhoVFklMiCvyU
        D9SnQ5jkGs516noC8HGFhYSk1P27Y2M0TC4a+HKk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple;
        s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1699779486;
        h=Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Feedback-ID;
        bh=nC+I2fpY9U773xaPcv4mvRaTivebo0Ynk3EitYfzLe0=;
        b=afB7fN36ziKCrkA3Rgvk8KTaOrc5EG5yJaDjlAliUDhwKuFT0QSdB7sUvSDxk3V2
        atq7GQroFs8I/ELYGbIBHBaS/OBWrXOXg9qbErIUm8IluYsW6/pvQ+We2UfVkUEe2ml
        vNEemOSD+EYxMrZcbsLjr2lUMsZwWzrJl88DtbBw=
Message-ID: <0100018bc2c0a1bb-2d98f059-805f-4806-8774-e931d7489c9c-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:58:06 +0000
Subject: Multiple files w/same name (versioning) - One of DEC's best ideas -
 New reply to watched thread
From: "forum_noreply@vcfed.org" <forum_noreply@vcfed.org>
To: Pepinno <pepinno@example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="_=_swift_1699779485_2da77af8ec2410da36608634ca82ff2d_=_"
X-To-Validate: fb5e9df4+pepinno@example.com
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.OHo6oi7AzCAnEw2fthA667BCUiM1qQCb+ngAqdZVe04=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2023.11.12-54.240.8.61

Where "example.com" is masquerading my real domain, and "pepinno" is doing the same form my email's local part.
 

Lutiana

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
3,286
Location
Dublin, CA USA
The last message I did get has issues.



The SPF for vcfed.org site includes its A record, so that is good, but syssrc.com has a massive SPF record. If that domain is still involved its SPF should be checked.

I looked at the header for the emails I am getting and it does not reference syssrc.com at all, and the SPF and DKIM shows pass with values I'd expect (references Google and AmazonAWS, which again, make sense). I also looked up the SPF record for vcfed.org and it also does not reference syssrc.com in it.

So can you tell us what the date is on that email? I am wondering if it is old or if your provider is using outdated DNS cache or something like that.

BTW - You obscured the email address, which is great, but you left in the link, so hovering over it you could see the email you tried to obscure. I edited that out, but just wanted to let you know for future.
 

Lutiana

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
3,286
Location
Dublin, CA USA
So @twolazy and I have sent a PM to and from each other, and both of us have received the alert emails without issue. The headers look good, there are no SPF or other SPAM protection issues going on at all.

So if you are not getting the alert emails please do the following:

1. Check you SPAM folder
2. Check any email filtering or rules you have, or check to see if there are any that you are not aware of.
3. Check that your email listed for you with us is correct
4. Check to make sure you have the correct alerting settings enable in your preferences here
5. If you have a custom domain that you receive email from, check to make sure your domain is not blacklisted for email or anything else (amazon/google may refuse to send email to domains they think are malicious).

Failing all of that, then let us know here. We'll probably need to handle these on a case by case basis and dig into logs on the back end to work out what is going on.

For now though, I think we'll have to consider this largely resolved.
 

skate323k137

Experienced Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2022
Messages
228
Location
Michigan
So can you tell us what the date is on that email? I am wondering if it is old or if your provider is using outdated DNS cache or something like that.

BTW - You obscured the email address, which is great, but you left in the link, so hovering over it you could see the email you tried to obscure. I edited that out, but just wanted to let you know for future.
My mistake missing that on the editing, thanks

It was very old, many months have passed but I haven't seen one since. Anyway, if the DKIM and SPF looks good now, disregard it.
 

daver2

10k Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
13,067
Location
UK - Worcester
Some feedback from me.

I ticked all of the email options in my profile a couple of weeks ago.

I am receiving DM/PM notifications (I always have done) but nothing else.

I am permanently logged on to the mobile site via my mobile (if this piece of information is relevant).

Dave
 

ajacocks

VCF MA Committee Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
1,241
Location
Middletown, Maryland USA
I wish I was more of a spam technology expert.

Wait, no I don't. DKIM/SPF/greylisting/sender scoring and all the other crap just serves to get in the way of legitimate mail, without much impeding spammers.

Let's just stop. Spam sucks, we all agree, but it's like trying to combat crime in a way that convicts the innocent, too. Wait...we do that too.

Sigh.
- Alex
 

Pepinno

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
594
Location
Barcelona
I wish I was more of a spam technology expert.

Wait, no I don't. DKIM/SPF/greylisting/sender scoring and all the other crap just serves to get in the way of legitimate mail, without much impeding spammers.

Let's just stop. Spam sucks, we all agree, but it's like trying to combat crime in a way that convicts the innocent, too. Wait...we do that too.

Sigh.
- Alex
I have worked professionally with SMTP servers and email hosting, and I assure you what without SPF and DMARC, Internet email as a federated platform would be unusable and some proprietary email platform (a la Facebook Messenger or some such) would have replaced it, for the worst (much like private web forums have replaced Usenet).
 
Top