alan Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I auto forward my alan at spamcop email to my ISP's POP account. The forwarded mail has been arriving slowly to my POP. I started noticing delays about two weeks ago; some mail has bounced back to the sender. I think it is being delayed at cesmail. One batch of emails took two days to arrive (see snip of header below). Lately, most are being held up from 2 hours, to several days. Received: from source ([216.154.1xx.xx]) (using TLSv1) by exprod5mx3.postini.com ([64.18.x.xx]) with SMTP;Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:48:53 EST Received: from unknown (HELO blade5.cesmail.net) (192.168.x.xxx) by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 20 Jan 2005 00:30:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 24244 invoked by uid 1010); 20 Jan 2005 Thanks, Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 That snippet could also mean one of the clocks is way off on one of the servers. When did spamcop say it received the message from the source (the received line prior to the one you provided? I have seen absolutely no delay on my accounts as I frequently send myself messages to and from my work account. I do not forward messages onto another account any longer, however. One other strange thing, I have email dating back to 1/24 and trash back to 1/28 and none of the almost 1000 messages travels from a bladeX server to c60. The servers delivering messages to c60 are: (beta, delta,gamma, epsilon, and mailgate). In fact I don't have one message with the phrase "HELO blade" at all. I do have lots of "Received: from unknown (192.168.1.10x) by bladex.cesmail.net..." Are you sure those headers were not forged at all? Received: (qmail 31956 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2005 18:30:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103) by blade1.cesmail.net with QMQP; 1 Feb 2005 18:30:26 -0000 Received: from mail.kopin.com (199.79.137.66) by mailgate2.cesmail.net with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 18:30:26 -0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 Thanks for the response, That header was one of about a dozen emails that were held up for up to two days. I have been testing my account for over a week. The ones that go through spamcop are usually delayed by hours, or days. I tested last night, sent test email directly to my ISP and through spamcop. The spamcop email hasn't hit my ISP yet, and isn't held at webmail. I have also contacted my ISP, they see no problems on their end. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 Attached is a snip from a message that was delayed on 1/28/05: Received: from source ([216.154.195.49]) (using TLSv1) by exprod5mx122.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:28:15 PST Received: from unknown (HELO blade6.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.216) by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 28 Jan 2005 14:23:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 4450 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Jan 2005 19:23:14 -0000 Delivered-To: spamcop-net-alan[at]spamcop.net A complete (personal info edited) header from 1/24/05 From - Mon Jan 24 08:30:59 2005 X-Account-Key: account1 X-UIDL: bc0"!em*"!C]~"!!X7"! X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: <KitchenAidconfir[at]suresource.com> Received: from mailfilter2.pacific.net (mailfilter2.pacific.net [63.162.24x.xx]) by mail.pacific.net (8.12.0/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j0MBnxbi002918 for <edited[at]mail.pacific.net>; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from psmtp.com (exprod5mx125.postini.com [64.18.0.39]) by mailfilter2.pacific.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id j0MBmr1I010027 for <edited[at]pacific.net>; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:48:53 -0800 Received: from source ([216.154.195.49]) (using TLSv1) by exprod5mx125.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:48:49 CST[/b] Received: from unknown (HELO blade6.cesmail.net) (192.168.1.216) by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 18:34:44 -0500 Received: (qmail 4590 invoked by uid 1010); 19 Jan 2005 23:35:52 -0000 Delivered-To: spamcop-net-alan+forum[at]spamcop.net Received: (qmail 4546 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2005 23:35:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101) by blade6.cesmail.net with QMQP; 19 Jan 2005 23:35:47 -0000 Received: from mail.suresource.com (HELO HERMES.Mythos.SureSource.com) (63.237.155.23) by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 23:35:47 -0000 Received: from HP3000 ([10.2.7.50]) by HERMES.Mythos.SureSource.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:35:53 -0500 From: <KitchenAidcon[at]suresource.com> To: <alan+forum[at]spamcop.net> Subject: Shipment Confirmation Message-ID: <HERMEScWOt2uHT2A3Cg0005d25a[at]HERMES.Mythos.SureSource.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2005 23:35:53.0620 (UTC) FILETIME=[9DDFAD40:01C4FE7F] Date: 19 Jan 2005 18:35:53 -0500 X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on blade6 X-spam-Level: X-spam-Status: hits=0.2 tests=NO_REAL_NAME version=3.0.0 X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 63.237.155.23 10.2.7.50 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.285, required 4.5, NO_REAL_NAME 0.28) X-MailScanner-From: kitchenaidconedit[at]suresource.com X-UIDL: bc0"!em*"!C]~"!!X7"! Status: RO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 OK, it looks like the reason I am not seeing your sequence of servers is that I do not forward. Unfortunately, I do not have my home machine right now, so I can not reconfigure my account to forward messages (otherwise I wil lose my current messages, including the tracking information for my laptop (been there, done that before)). From the full header set, it does look like a problem on the forwarding side of the system. If I were home, I would send a message to JT myself but you can do the same thing. Send your complaint with a few ful header examples (should not need the body of the messages) to support<at>spamcop.net. I know I currently have a query in to him about the beta webmail test so it may take a little while. In the mean time, do you have the capability to disable forwarding from spamcop and collecting those messages another way. From my experience with Postini, I don't think so, but thought I would ask. From my experience and the headers you provided, the messages seem to be arriving at spamcop with no delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 Thanks Steven, I emailed support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 You can pop SpamCop directly SpamCops email system is probably faster than you can receive Forwarding is not needed and removes a step that another ISP can do wrong I'm in Sydney Australia but also get mail in other countries around the Planet always found SpamCops email capable of more speed than the ISP used has (at least the speed I can receive email at) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 petzl, my reading (and reply) was that this person's problem was with spamcop forwarding out the messages to another account. In general, forwarding will always be quicker because it is handled directly without ever stopping in the account, waiting to be POPped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 petzl, my reading (and reply) was that this person's problem was with spamcop forwarding out the messages to another account. In general, forwarding will always be quicker because it is handled directly without ever stopping in the account, waiting to be POPped. 23837[/snapback] That is the way I read it also? I'm saying once forwarded, ones own email client then has to POP at timed intervals regardless To POP (or IMAP) directly to pop.spamcop.net (or imap.spamcop.net)is as fast as recieving from ones provider. The advantage is less to go wrong and no disadvantage (a needless step removed) I used to forward early in the piece but found my ISP was losing email. Never lost any since directly POP SpamCop It is even better if you phase out other email addresses and just use the only email address you will ever need, your spam proof SpamCop one. Just have those existing email addresses forwarded to SpamCop (make sure they are registered with SC's "mailhosts" program) after a time you can send them to silicon heaven as they should become defunct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefft Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 I realize this is old, but Positini is or was blocking us from connecting to their mail servers. At times they were even bouncing email that we were delivering to them, but usually they were just blocking connections from us for hours at a time. I was never able to get an answer out of them why they were doing it. The problem, for now, seems to have gone away. JT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 JT, Just to follow up on our email, I was never able to get the problem to occur, although I did not try too many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.