From Newsgroup: comp.misc

It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get through. There is no
bounce, they just vanish into a black hole. Similarly some emails I do
not receive, and I do not know why.

It looks like there is a history of problems between gmail and other
providers. This is because gmail is seen by some providers as a source
of spam. There has been friction between gmail and outlook for example.

Are we moving to a system of trust with email, where the default
position is no trust? Will people drift to Whatsapp because there is no
way to troubleshoot email? no error messages, no feedback, no support.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Richmond wrote:

It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get through. There is no
bounce, they just vanish into a black hole.

Do you use your own domain? If so, have you got SFP and/or DKIM
configured? If not, the big providers do tend to just throw away emails ...


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get
through. There is no bounce, they just vanish into a
black hole. Similarly some emails I do not receive,
and I do not know why.

It looks like there is a history of problems between
gmail and other providers. This is because gmail is
seen by some providers as a source of spam. There has
been friction between gmail and outlook for example.

Microsoft users (Outlook hosting and non-cloud with EOP) also have to
worry about the Quarantine. IIRC non-personal Gmail also had some similar-looking filtering, but with no interface to look at rejected
messages.

And I'm assuming Outlook doesn't also make messages vanish, without
showing up in the Quarantine...

Are we moving to a system of trust with email, where
the default position is no trust? Will people drift to
Whatsapp because there is no way to troubleshoot
email? no error messages, no feedback, no support.

--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Nuno Silva wrote:

And I'm assuming Outlook doesn't also make messages vanish, without
showing up in the Quarantine...

Actually, outlook does have a concept of "clutter" where it can learn
what types of email you pay no attention to, and separate them into a
clutter folder where you may not be aware they are ...

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

Richmond wrote:

It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get through. There is no
bounce, they just vanish into a black hole.

Do you use your own domain? If so, have you got SFP and/or DKIM
configured? If not, the big providers do tend to just throw away
emails ...

No I am just using gmail as it is. Why do they throw away emails? Why
can't they tell someone what they are doing?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Richmond <dnomhcir@GMX.com> wrote: |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get through. There is no | |bounce, they just vanish into a black hole. Similarly some emails I do |
|not receive, and I do not know why." | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

I watched a friend send an email from GMail to Insomnia 24/7 and it
never arrives. Cf. I wrote on
HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/
-
"[. . .] elektronische Post-Konten vernichtet.
Ein Referat verr|nt ein Ersatzst|+ck, aber es hatte E-Mails, die an den
17.8.2024 bzw. 6.9.2024 bzw. 30.9.2024 von GMail.com bzw.
Justiz.Niedersachsen.De bzw. Inbox.Lv sind, vers|numt, zu holen. Es habe
auch eine E-Mail, die am 24.10.2024 von SMB.London sei, so Frau
Rechtsanw|nltin Tatiana Hepher, vers|numt, zu holen. Achtung!"

Richmond <dnomhcir@GMX.com> wrote: |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .] |
| |
|Are we moving to a system of trust with email, where the default | |position is no trust?" | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Passwords do not prove trusts.

Don Y says in news:sci.electronics.design that Multics is designed to
assume that other users are malicious instead of the UNIX / Internet
mistake of trust.

I used to use an email (ex-)address whose ex-username consists only of
digits. One email which it sent got an automatic response from an
email server warning that that email server refuses the emails from
the usernames which consist only of numerals.

Email software often inserts warnings. E.g.
"WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender
and know the content is safe."

E.g.
"You don't often get email from [. . .]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
"

Some other warnings follow. E.g.

"MESSAGE BLOCKED

Your message to [. . .] has been blocked. See technical details
below for more information.
LEARN MORE
The response from the recipient enterprise administrator was:

The user or domain that you are sending to (or from) has a policy that prohibited the mail that you sent. Please contact your domain administrator
for further details. For more information, go to https://support.google.com/a/answer/172179
"

E.g. (about a blocked but completely safe email):

"An error occurred while trying to deliver the mail to the following recipients:
[. . .]@GMail.com

[ Part 2: "Delivery Status Notification" ]

Reporting-MTA: dns; a48-112.smtp-out.amazonses.com

Action: failed
Final-Recipient: rfc822; [. . .]@GMail.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 552-5.7.0 This message was blocked because its
content presents a potential
552-5.7.0 security issue. To review our message content and attachment
content
552-5.7.0 guidelines, go to
552 5.7.0 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BlockedMessage 6a1803df08f44-90e9f071f9bsi39106186d6.594 - gsmtp
Status: 5.7.0
"

E.g.
"Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

[. . .]@met.police.UK
Your message couldn't be delivered because the mailbox you're sending to
needs to know who you are before it will accept your message.

To fix this problem, contact the person you're sending your message to (by phone or instant messaging, for example) and tell them to ask their email
admin to configure their mailbox to accept messages from you.

For Email Administrators
This error occurs when the recipient's mailbox is configured to require that all senders to it are authenticated. To fix the issue, the recipient's email admin must add the sender's address to the mailbox's list of allowed senders
or they must deselect the mailbox's message delivery restrictions option
that requires that all senders to it are authenticated.

For more information and instructions on how to do this, see NDR status code 5.7.134 in Office 365 and Exchange Online [go.microsoft.com].



[. . .]@met.police.UK
Your message couldn't be delivered to the recipient because you don't have permission to send to it.

Ask the recipient's email admin to add you to the accept list for the recipient.

For more information, see DSN 5.7.129 Errors in Exchange Online and Office
365 [go.microsoft.com].









Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: LO6P265MB7051.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM

[. . .]@met.police.UK
Remote server returned '550 5.7.134 RESOLVER.RST.SenderNotAuthenticatedForMailbox; authentication required; Delivery restriction check failed because the sender was not authenticated
when sending to this mailbox'

[. ..]@met.police.UK
Remote server returned '550 5.7.129 RESOLVER.RST.RestrictedToRecipientsPermission; not authorized to send to recipient because the sender isn't on the recipient's list of senders to
accept mail from'

Original message headers:

[. . .]"

Jeff Layman wrote to news:uk.legal.moderated on 22nd September 2026: |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Just as with WhatCrapp, I have no other social media accounts. I can, | |though, unfortunately see a time when something important can't be done| |without one. :-(" | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Richmond <dnomhcir@GMX.com> wrote: |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Will people drift to Whatsapp because there is no |
|way to troubleshoot email? no error messages, no feedback, no support."| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Errors messages; feedback; and supports for emails exist.

A person wrote: |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"I used to have an addy at fastmail.fm, was the best service and email I| |ever had. I only stopped using it because I could no longer afford it. I|
|do not know of any decent free email providers. [. . .] |
|[. . .]" | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|

A different person recommends Cock.Li

Other suggestions are welcome.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In article <82fqyxqqih.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

Richmond wrote:

It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get through. There is no
bounce, they just vanish into a black hole.

Do you use your own domain? If so, have you got SFP and/or DKIM
configured? If not, the big providers do tend to just throw away
emails ...

No I am just using gmail as it is. Why do they throw away emails? Why
can't they tell someone what they are doing?

There's nobody at the helm. They are spewing out vast amounts of spam email and nobody at google seems to care...it's possible that it's going the way
of Google Groups.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:53:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Do you use your own domain? If so, have you got [SPF] and/or DKIM
configured? If not, the big providers do tend to just throw away
emails ...

An SME client of mine has SPF configured on their domain. Every now
and then, they have the need to communicate with a rather large, and
seemingly rather stupid Australasian corporation. These latter people
get their mail through outlook.com. But if you look at the MX record
for their domain, it points at mimecast.com.

So mail we send to them goes to mimecast.com, which does something
unspeakable to it that I know nothing about, and have no wish to know.
From there it gets passed to outlook.com.

Then outlook.com does its own checks, and discovers from the SPF
record that mail from my clientrCOs domain is only allowed to come from
certain servers, which do *not* include mimecast.com. And so it
rejects the mail.

Are we supposed to add mimecast.com, an outfit we have no dealings
with and know nothing about, to our SPF record just to satisfy
somebodyrCOs configuration screwup that isnrCOt even our fault? Of course
not.

IrCOm assuming that outlook.com, being presumably run by Microsoft,
offers some way for its customers to fix its configuration to handle
precisely this situation. But this particular customer of theirs seems
unable to figure this out.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:53:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Do you use your own domain? If so, have you got [SPF] and/or DKIM
configured? If not, the big providers do tend to just throw away
emails ...

An SME client of mine has SPF configured on their domain. Every now
and then, they have the need to communicate with a rather large, and seemingly rather stupid Australasian corporation. These latter people
get their mail through outlook.com. But if you look at the MX record
for their domain, it points at mimecast.com.

So mail we send to them goes to mimecast.com, which does something unspeakable to it that I know nothing about, and have no wish to know.
From there it gets passed to outlook.com.

Then outlook.com does its own checks, and discovers from the SPF
record that mail from my clientrCOs domain is only allowed to come from certain servers, which do *not* include mimecast.com. And so it
rejects the mail.

Are we supposed to add mimecast.com, an outfit we have no dealings
with and know nothing about, to our SPF record just to satisfy
somebodyrCOs configuration screwup that isnrCOt even our fault? Of course not.

IrCOm assuming that outlook.com, being presumably run by Microsoft,
offers some way for its customers to fix its configuration to handle precisely this situation. But this particular customer of theirs seems
unable to figure this out.

At least you got a rejection message. (Presumably you did).

I find the idea of changing email address daunting.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:39:44 +0100, Richmond wrote:

It seems some of my gmail emails just don't get through. There is no
bounce, they just vanish into a black hole. Similarly some emails I do
not receive, and I do not know why.

It looks like there is a history of problems between gmail and other providers. This is because gmail is seen by some providers as a source
of spam. There has been friction between gmail and outlook for example.

Are we moving to a system of trust with email, where the default
position is no trust? Will people drift to Whatsapp because there is no
way to troubleshoot email? no error messages, no feedback, no support.

I think part of the issue is that you are using gmail. I am not sure I
would trust gmail, as if they don't like who is sending email to you they
can just not deliver it, or they can not send your email to them.
Remember when you don't pay for a product you are the product. I would suggest maybe you should look for another email provider. That what I do,
I pay for my email hosting where I have 3 email address (across 3 domains)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 28 Sep 2026 18:30:36 GMT
"Michael P. O'Connor" <mpop@mikeoconnor.net> wrote:

Remember when you don't pay for a product you are the product. I
would suggest maybe you should look for another email provider.

Or just run your own email server using HestiaCP to automagically
configure all the technical tasks with a few mouse clicks.

Cheap VPS : $20-30 per year.
Domain name : $20-30 per year.
HestiaCP : free.

Then use HestiaCP to create unlimited emails on your own domain.

Pay for several years of domain and VPS in advance, set it, forget it.

Total cost : $40-60 per year.

Benefits : no middleman, no censorship, fine-grained control.

Drawbacks : no more excuses to complain on Usenet about mail.

The LowEndBox site is the best jumping-off point.
--
OCTADE | https://octade.net


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:39:44 +0100, Richmond wrote:

It looks like there is a history of problems between gmail and other providers. This is because gmail is seen by some providers as a source
of spam.

YourCOd think Google would take better care of their own service, given
the number of suitably-qualified people they must have on their
payroll.

A few months back I was seeing a kind of spam that seemed to involve
the setting up of mailing lists on Google Groups and subscribing
people to those lists without their permission. When a spam message
was sent out, that triggered a bunch of autoreplies from various
addresses on the list, back to the list, which were in turn sent out
to everybody. (No, luckily there was not a continuing cascade.) A real nuisance, until I added a simple header_checks entry to my Postfix
config which blocked them all:

/^List-Unsubscribe\:\s*.*\@googlegroups\.com/ REJECT
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2026-09-29, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:39:44 +0100, Richmond wrote:

It looks like there is a history of problems between gmail and other
providers. This is because gmail is seen by some providers as a source
of spam.

YourCOd think Google would take better care of their own service, given
the number of suitably-qualified people they must have on their
payroll.

Google is so good at handling SPAM that they decided to stop peering
USENET in Google Groups rather than curbing abuse of their own service.

I think that says a lot.

A few months back I was seeing a kind of spam that seemed to involve
the setting up of mailing lists on Google Groups and subscribing
people to those lists without their permission. When a spam message
was sent out, that triggered a bunch of autoreplies from various
addresses on the list, back to the list, which were in turn sent out
to everybody. (No, luckily there was not a continuing cascade.) A real nuisance, until I added a simple header_checks entry to my Postfix
config which blocked them all:

/^List-Unsubscribe\:\s*.*\@googlegroups\.com/ REJECT

--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:39:44 +0100, Richmond wrote:

It looks like there is a history of problems between gmail and other
providers. This is because gmail is seen by some providers as a source
of spam.

This is because gmail is a huge source of spam. So I can see where
that perception may have come from.

YourCOd think Google would take better care of their own service, given
the number of suitably-qualified people they must have on their
payroll.

I don't think there is anyone on payroll at Google Groups. At gmail itself
it might be better, but I think Google Groups runs unattended without any
human intervention. I have talked to a lot of people at Google and none of them have ever known anyone who worked for Google Groups.

A few months back I was seeing a kind of spam that seemed to involve
the setting up of mailing lists on Google Groups and subscribing
people to those lists without their permission. When a spam message
was sent out, that triggered a bunch of autoreplies from various
addresses on the list, back to the list, which were in turn sent out
to everybody. (No, luckily there was not a continuing cascade.) A real >nuisance, until I added a simple header_checks entry to my Postfix
config which blocked them all:

/^List-Unsubscribe\:\s*.*\@googlegroups\.com/ REJECT

I get maybe twenty or so spam emails a day that are injected from Google Groups, but I have never seen the redirects to the list thankfully.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

"Michael P. O'Connor" <mpop@mikeoconnor.net> writes:

I think part of the issue is that you are using gmail. I am not sure
I would trust gmail, as if they don't like who is sending email to you
they can just not deliver it, or they can not send your email to them. Remember when you don't pay for a product you are the product. I
would suggest maybe you should look for another email provider. That
what I do, I pay for my email hosting where I have 3 email address
(across 3 domains)

Yes, I have had my gmail address for 16 years at least, judging by my
emails. Changing address is daunting, and it is about to get more
daunting with age verification. Having the gmail address will probably
get me through most of it without having to upload my driving licence to
the dark web. Before Gmail I had Yahoo from about 1999 and I still
haven't really quit that altogether. Google owns me.

Having an email address was quite different in 2010, not nearly as
important. And in 1999 it was a complete novelty to have a free one with
Yahoo.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

How about setting Google to forward emails to a new emails account?

(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2