I've been noticing odd delays in receiving email on my SC account today. I've tested this by sending mail to my SC address from other accounts, and when the messages finally arrive, they're sometimes over an HOUR late! I'm trying some direct connections to port 25 on both "mx.spamcop.net" and "mx2.spamcop.net" from a Linux-based web server in a major datacenter and the connections aren't being answered. Another test that failed is the tools at DNSReport.com:
http://dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=spamcop.net
where I'm seeing red flagged errors like this:
ERROR: I could not complete a connection to any of your mailservers!
mx2.spamcop.net: Timed out [Last data sent: [Did not connect]]
mx.spamcop.net: Timed out [Last data sent: [Did not connect]]
I'm pretty sure there are problems today with SpamCops email server. I was hoping that Wazoo would be online so that he could "page JT" but that doesn't seem to be the case.
on edit: I've been "refreshing" the test at DNSReport and it was able to connect to both, but then I did it again and got this:
ERROR: I could not complete a connection to one or more of your mailservers:
mx2.spamcop.net: Timed out [Last data sent: [Did not connect]]
so it's on and off. I still can't connect at all fron the web server....seems as if it's more likely to accept connections from some sources but not from others, or maybe it's random...
DT
Full Version: Delays in receiving mail via SC email account
Wazoo has managed to screw up his own back while doing things for someone else recovering from a back operation ... incoming phone calls from other folks with computer 'issues' brought him back out of that pain-killer pill induced stupor .....
OK, can't duplicate the issue at present .... pertinent headers lines of a test from a GMail account to a SpamCop account ....
basically a minute .... maybe too late, after the fact, ....?????
OK, can't duplicate the issue at present .... pertinent headers lines of a test from a GMail account to a SpamCop account ....
CODE
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade4.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 20:04:11 -0000
Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (72.14.204.239)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 20:04:01 -0000
Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id q12so636446qba
for <Wazoo>; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.94.7 with SMTP id w7mr16006344pyl;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <Wazoo>
Received: from msi6378 ( [home system])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m39sm76850pye.2006.10.17.13.03.49;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <002101c6f227$5c836880$6401a8c0[at]msi6378>
From: "Wazoo"
To: <Wazoo>
Subject: testing for delay
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:03:48 -0500
DT says he's seeing an hour delay on e-mail through
the spamcop e-mail servers (mx 53 specifically)
by blade4.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 20:04:11 -0000
Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (72.14.204.239)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 20:04:01 -0000
Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id q12so636446qba
for <Wazoo>; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.94.7 with SMTP id w7mr16006344pyl;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <Wazoo>
Received: from msi6378 ( [home system])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m39sm76850pye.2006.10.17.13.03.49;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <002101c6f227$5c836880$6401a8c0[at]msi6378>
From: "Wazoo"
To: <Wazoo>
Subject: testing for delay
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:03:48 -0500
DT says he's seeing an hour delay on e-mail through
the spamcop e-mail servers (mx 53 specifically)
basically a minute .... maybe too late, after the fact, ....?????
While I do see the errors listed on David's link above, my results have gone along with Wazoo's:
Sorry Dave
CODE
Received: (qmail 32347 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2006 20:43:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:53 -0000
Received: from owa.kopin.com (69.64.104.237)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:46 -0000
Subject: Test for delay
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:42:47 -0400
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:53 -0000
Received: from owa.kopin.com (69.64.104.237)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:46 -0000
Subject: Test for delay
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:42:47 -0400
CODE
Received: (qmail 32405 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2006 20:43:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)
by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:58 -0000
Received: from bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com (65.54.246.138)
by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:49 -0000
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.174.14]) by bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:42:54 -0700
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:42:54 -0700
Received: from 65.54.174.200 by by103fd.bay103.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:42:50 GMT
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:42:50 -0400
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)
by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:58 -0000
Received: from bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com (65.54.246.138)
by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 20:43:49 -0000
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.174.14]) by bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:42:54 -0700
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:42:54 -0700
Received: from 65.54.174.200 by by103fd.bay103.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:42:50 GMT
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:42:50 -0400
CODE
Received: (qmail 31876 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2006 19:16:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade5.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 19:16:56 -0000
Received: from 209-80-230-57.client.mecnet.net (HELO barracuda.nps.org) (209.80.230.57)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 19:16:56 -0000
Received: from mail.nps.org (209-80-230-58.client.mecnet.net [209.80.230.58])
by barracuda.nps.org (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP
id 6F1B92D6B; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:15:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:16:41 -0400
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade5.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 19:16:56 -0000
Received: from 209-80-230-57.client.mecnet.net (HELO barracuda.nps.org) (209.80.230.57)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 19:16:56 -0000
Received: from mail.nps.org (209-80-230-58.client.mecnet.net [209.80.230.58])
by barracuda.nps.org (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP
id 6F1B92D6B; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:15:43 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:16:41 -0400
CODE
Received: (qmail 13486 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2006 18:34:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)
by blade2.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 18:34:51 -0000
Received: from mailrly04fa.starwave.com (199.181.135.35)
by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 18:34:36 -0000
Received: from mailrly03fa.starwave.com (mailrly03fa.starwave.com [199.181.135.26])
by mailrly04.starwave.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id k9HFOepM006573
for <underwood+disney[at]spamcop.net>; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:33:53 -0700
Received: from [10.192.74.126] by mailrly03fa.starwave.com
(Sendmail MMA v1.4.3.Beta1) with SMIP id k9HBXh24536vgNV1;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:33:53 -0700
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)
by blade2.cesmail.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2006 18:34:51 -0000
Received: from mailrly04fa.starwave.com (199.181.135.35)
by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2006 18:34:36 -0000
Received: from mailrly03fa.starwave.com (mailrly03fa.starwave.com [199.181.135.26])
by mailrly04.starwave.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id k9HFOepM006573
for <underwood+disney[at]spamcop.net>; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:33:53 -0700
Received: from [10.192.74.126] by mailrly03fa.starwave.com
(Sendmail MMA v1.4.3.Beta1) with SMIP id k9HBXh24536vgNV1;
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:33:53 -0700
Sorry Dave
I think the problem got solved in Georgia before the two of you showed up (several hours after I posted the problem here). I'm now able to telnet to port 25 of mx.spamcop.net successfully and just sent myself a message that arrived quickly. I think all the delayed mail also showed up while I was gone (I've been away from my computer for over 4 hours). The DNSReport.com test also looks better now.
Thanks anyway. BTW, I used my news reader earlier today to check to see if anyone had posted to "spamcop.news" but the most recent messages in that group seemed to be from Sept. 17th, while the other spamcop newsgroups all have recent messages. What happened to the "email" group?
DT
Sorry to hear that....hope you get to a chiropractor, massage therapist, or whatever would help soon.
DT
Thanks anyway. BTW, I used my news reader earlier today to check to see if anyone had posted to "spamcop.news" but the most recent messages in that group seemed to be from Sept. 17th, while the other spamcop newsgroups all have recent messages. What happened to the "email" group?
DT
QUOTE(Wazoo @ Oct 17 2006, 01:18 PM) 
Wazoo has managed to screw up his own back while doing things for someone else recovering from a back operation
Sorry to hear that....hope you get to a chiropractor, massage therapist, or whatever would help soon.
DT
QUOTE(DavidT @ Oct 17 2006, 07:14 PM)
I think the problem got solved in Georgia before the two of you showed up (several hours after I posted the problem here).
I have mail from 3AM, 6:30AM, 11:15AM, 2:30PM (just after you posted, all EDT) all that do not show any delay.
Is it possible your local tests were all trying to connect to the same IP address in the round robin and that IP was not responding?
> mx.spamcop.net
Server: resolver1.opendns.com
Address: 208.67.222.222
Non-authoritative answer:
mx.spamcop.net internet address = 216.154.195.53
mx.spamcop.net internet address = 216.154.195.36
> mx2.spamcop.net
Server: resolver1.opendns.com
Address: 208.67.222.222
Non-authoritative answer:
mx2.spamcop.net internet address = 216.154.195.36
mx2.spamcop.net internet address = 216.154.195.53
QUOTE(StevenUnderwood @ Oct 17 2006, 05:14 PM)
I have mail from 3AM, 6:30AM, 11:15AM, 2:30PM (just after you posted, all EDT) all that do not show any delay.
I had mail sent from varous, unrelated outside sources showing significant delays.
QUOTE
Is it possible your local tests were all trying to connect to the same IP address in the round robin and that IP was not responding?
No, the connections were made from different locations, and involved the correct host names and IP addresses, and they simply were not consistently responding during the "brownout." The fact that the DNSReport system was having hardly any luck connecting to them is adequate proof, on top of my own testing. There were clearly problems in Georgia, but thankfully, they're gone.
I'm still wondering what happened to the "spamcop.mail" NG, however...
DT
I think David is right... I just received a message that SAYS it was delivered to SCMail @ 14:14:02 (PDT), but it didn't show up in my inbox until 15:50 (PDT).
Here's the headers (though they don't show that the mail was delayed in delivery to my box)
Return-Path: <noreply[at]discogs.com>
Delivered-To: x
Received: (qmail 3559 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2006 21:14:02 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: hits=0.0 tests=none version=3.1.1
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 18 Oct 2006 21:14:02 -0000
Received: from 10-166-152-66-dedicated.multacom.com (HELO mail3.mygisol.com) (66.152.166.10)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 21:14:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 2411 invoked by uid 399); 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 -0000
Delivered-To: x
Received: (qmail 1361 invoked by uid 399); 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 -0000
X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by clamdmail 0.15 (no viruses);
Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 +0000
Received: from mail2.discogs.com (70.103.226.18)
by 66.152.166.10 with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 -0000
Received-SPF: pass (66.152.166.10: SPF record at discogs.com designates 70.103.226.18 as permitted sender)
identity=mailfrom; client-ip=70.103.226.18;
envelope-from=<noreply[at]discogs.com>;
Received: from [10.10.10.26] (web06 [10.10.10.26])
by mail2.discogs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAF954C10D
for <x>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Discogs Server <noreply[at]discogs.com>
To: <x>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:13:50 -0700
Subject: (new comment) Add Release: Speicher 41 (12")
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20061018211350.5EAF954C10D[at]mail2.discogs.com>
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 66.152.166.10 70.103.226.18 66.152.166.10 66.152.166.10 70.103.226.18 70.103.226.18 10.10.10.26 10.10.10.26
X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: noreply[at]discogs.com
Here's the headers (though they don't show that the mail was delayed in delivery to my box)
CODE
Return-Path: <noreply[at]discogs.com>
Delivered-To: x
Received: (qmail 3559 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2006 21:14:02 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: hits=0.0 tests=none version=3.1.1
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)
by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 18 Oct 2006 21:14:02 -0000
Received: from 10-166-152-66-dedicated.multacom.com (HELO mail3.mygisol.com) (66.152.166.10)
by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 21:14:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 2411 invoked by uid 399); 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 -0000
Delivered-To: x
Received: (qmail 1361 invoked by uid 399); 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 -0000
X-Virus-Scan: Scanned by clamdmail 0.15 (no viruses);
Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 +0000
Received: from mail2.discogs.com (70.103.226.18)
by 66.152.166.10 with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 21:13:47 -0000
Received-SPF: pass (66.152.166.10: SPF record at discogs.com designates 70.103.226.18 as permitted sender)
identity=mailfrom; client-ip=70.103.226.18;
envelope-from=<noreply[at]discogs.com>;
Received: from [10.10.10.26] (web06 [10.10.10.26])
by mail2.discogs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAF954C10D
for <x>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Discogs Server <noreply[at]discogs.com>
To: <x>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:13:50 -0700
Subject: (new comment) Add Release: Speicher 41 (12")
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20061018211350.5EAF954C10D[at]mail2.discogs.com>
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 66.152.166.10 70.103.226.18 66.152.166.10 66.152.166.10 70.103.226.18 70.103.226.18 10.10.10.26 10.10.10.26
X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: noreply[at]discogs.com
But the problem was just for a few hours yesterday (the 17th)....I don't think you should be seeing similar behavior today.
DT
DT
QUOTE(DavidT @ Oct 18 2006, 02:14 AM)
<snip>
I'm still wondering what happened to the "spamcop.mail" NG, however...
DT
...IIRC, JT warned that he might take it down some time ago, around the time of the birth of these Fora....
I'm still wondering what happened to the "spamcop.mail" NG, however...
DT
QUOTE(turetzsr @ Oct 18 2006, 05:33 PM)
...IIRC, JT warned that he might take it down some time ago, around the time of the birth of these Fora....
Sure...that's been floating around for a LOOOONNNGGG time, but I'm wondering if it's really happened or not. I was mostly looking for others to try logging in to verify what I reported.
I just posted a test message in the group...it will be interesting to see if others can see it.
DT
QUOTE(DavidT @ Oct 18 2006, 04:49 PM)
But the problem was just for a few hours yesterday (the 17th)....I don't think you should be seeing similar behavior today.
DT
Hence my confusion as to the delay in receipt.
QUOTE(btech @ Oct 18 2006, 05:41 PM)
Hence my confusion as to the delay in receipt.
Well, it *could* have happened to you today....I didn't have a chance to look closely at any headers of my own (or even yours), but I'll try to do so.
DT
QUOTE(DavidT @ Oct 18 2006, 06:36 PM)
Well, it *could* have happened to you today....I didn't have a chance to look closely at any headers of my own (or even yours), but I'll try to do so.
DT
That's the thing, the headers show that it was delivered within a minute or so. I haven't noticed any delays since that message and this test I just sent confirms that messages are being delivered rather fast (1 second):
CODE
Return-Path: <x>
Delivered-To: cesmail-net-x
Received: (qmail 28292 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2006 01:51:14 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: hits=-1.4 tests=ALL_TRUSTED version=3.1.1
Received: from unknown (HELO c60.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.105)
by blade6.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Oct 2006 01:51:14 -0000
Received: from mailgate.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.36])
by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 21:51:12 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,326,1157342400";
d="scan'208"; a="394099939:sNHT33212670"
Received: (qmail 15885 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2006 01:51:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gamma.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.20)
by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Oct 2006 01:51:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 25738 invoked by uid 99); 19 Oct 2006 01:51:13 -0000
Received: from tx.tesoropetroleum.com (tx.tesoropetroleum.com
[207.207.58.100]) by webmail.spamcop.net (Horde) with HTTP for
<x[at]cesmail.net>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:51:13 -0700
Message-ID: <20061018185113.eq0f9wo4oc0sow40[at]webmail.spamcop.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:51:13 -0700
From: Brandon Plank <x>
To: x
Subject: TEST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.105 216.154.195.36 192.168.1.20 207.207.58.100
X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: x
Delivered-To: cesmail-net-x
Received: (qmail 28292 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2006 01:51:14 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: hits=-1.4 tests=ALL_TRUSTED version=3.1.1
Received: from unknown (HELO c60.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.105)
by blade6.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Oct 2006 01:51:14 -0000
Received: from mailgate.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.36])
by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 18 Oct 2006 21:51:12 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,326,1157342400";
d="scan'208"; a="394099939:sNHT33212670"
Received: (qmail 15885 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2006 01:51:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gamma.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.20)
by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Oct 2006 01:51:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 25738 invoked by uid 99); 19 Oct 2006 01:51:13 -0000
Received: from tx.tesoropetroleum.com (tx.tesoropetroleum.com
[207.207.58.100]) by webmail.spamcop.net (Horde) with HTTP for
<x[at]cesmail.net>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:51:13 -0700
Message-ID: <20061018185113.eq0f9wo4oc0sow40[at]webmail.spamcop.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:51:13 -0700
From: Brandon Plank <x>
To: x
Subject: TEST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.105 216.154.195.36 192.168.1.20 207.207.58.100
X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: x
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.