Anyone else?

3 over the last 10 days.

Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.

I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.
--
Tim Lamb

On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?

3 over the last 10 days.

Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...

--
Adrian C

On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?

3 over the last 10 days.

Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.

I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.

You are not giving us much to go on. I presume there was no bounce.
First question is are the missing emails in their spam box?
Might the email have been filtered for looking like spam?

Certain SPF rules seem to have been tightened recently which was causing
some people problems if their SPF record was not exactly right. Mainly
when sending emails to other corporate sites with SPF checking.

BTW your Usenet posting address no longer exists!
Demonic domains were nuked some time ago.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/02/2021 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021 at 10:19:45 GMT, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?

3 over the last 10 days.

Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.

I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.

What's this "message read" box business?

When the recipient opens the mail it tries to send a message back to
that effect (no guarantee they have read it though - only opened it and
allowed the message receipt email to escape). I block them.

You are not giving us much to go on. I presume there was no bounce.
First question is are the missing emails in their spam box?
Might the email have been filtered for looking like spam?

Certain SPF rules seem to have been tightened recently which was causing
some people problems if their SPF record was not exactly right. Mainly
when sending emails to other corporate sites with SPF checking.

What ar SPF rules and where are they and who applies them to what?

It is supposed to be an antispam measure. It doesn't really work but it
has gained traction and it catches out the unwary rather too often.

If you check your domain name using nslookup you can see if they are
right. Incantation from a DOSBOX is:

NSLookup.exe -q=TXT nonad.co.uk

Mine looks like this: "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all"

I'm guessing yours might come back "not found" or "none". The recipient
might well have your email but in some quarantine spammer junk mail box.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/02/2021 11:53, Tim Streater wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021 at 11:07:18 GMT, Martin Brown
wrote:

If you check your domain name using nslookup you can see if they are
right. Incantation from a DOSBOX is:

NSLookup.exe -q=TXT nonad.co.uk

Mine looks like this: "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all"

I'm guessing yours might come back "not found" or "none". The recipient
might well have your email but in some quarantine spammer junk mail box.

I tried this in a macOS Terminal window and got a similar line for a couple of
my domains, and "not found" for a couple of others (as you suggested might
happen). Perhaps that explains why I occasionally get an email from my ISP
saying that they have quarantined a mail as possible spam, but they'll send it
me if I really want it. And as you say, it doesn't really work worth a damn.


It isn't a great idea to be sending mail out that has SPF fail in the
headers since it results in plenty of corporate mail servers treating it
as spam or even worse dropping it on the floor without any notification.

I suggest you only use your domains with plausible SPF records for
sending mail and ask your ISP to sort out the ones that are defective.
(if you intend to send mail from them)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...

I don't think I've met "offline mode".

The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.


--
Tim Lamb

In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.
I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.

You are not giving us much to go on. I presume there was no bounce.
First question is are the missing emails in their spam box?
Might the email have been filtered for looking like spam?

Not mentioned. This was a commercial enquiry.

Certain SPF rules seem to have been tightened recently which was
causing some people problems if their SPF record was not exactly right.
Mainly when sending emails to other corporate sites with SPF checking.
My mail is handled by Namesco.

BTW your Usenet posting address no longer exists!
Demonic domains were nuked some time ago.

Indeed:-( After 27 years.
The Turnpike Newsgroup were willing to sort me out but traditionally
people munged their return addresses and it was simpler to leave it
alone.


--
Tim Lamb

Half the time it means nothing as few respect that flag.
I have noticed that NHS addresses are very intermittent both ways no matter
what email client I use, one in particular for my doctor has the same issue
whether I use my isp email or gmail.
Very peculiar.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
Anyone else?

3 over the last 10 days.

Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.

I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.
--
Tim Lamb

That sounds very unsatisfactory, nobody is going to delve that deep, surely
the folk using this need a rethink or at the very least send a bounce.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 11/02/2021 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021 at 10:19:45 GMT, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.
I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.

What's this "message read" box business?

When the recipient opens the mail it tries to send a message back to that
effect (no guarantee they have read it though - only opened it and allowed
the message receipt email to escape). I block them.

You are not giving us much to go on. I presume there was no bounce.
First question is are the missing emails in their spam box?
Might the email have been filtered for looking like spam?

Certain SPF rules seem to have been tightened recently which was causing
some people problems if their SPF record was not exactly right. Mainly
when sending emails to other corporate sites with SPF checking.

What ar SPF rules and where are they and who applies them to what?

It is supposed to be an antispam measure. It doesn't really work but it
has gained traction and it catches out the unwary rather too often.

If you check your domain name using nslookup you can see if they are
right. Incantation from a DOSBOX is:

NSLookup.exe -q=TXT nonad.co.uk

Mine looks like this: "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all"

I'm guessing yours might come back "not found" or "none". The recipient
might well have your email but in some quarantine spammer junk mail box.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Yes seen that one as well nearly always makes me chuckle when I see messages
like that. The other give away email is.
Your email of xxxx was deleted without being read by address on xxx
Not a good look for a customer services department of a council I'd say.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:55:29 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

On 11 Feb 2021 at 11:18:06 GMT, Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:07:18 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/02/2021 10:34, Tim Streater wrote:
[quoted text muted]

When the recipient opens the mail it tries to send a message back to
that effect (no guarantee they have read it though - only opened it
and allowed the message receipt email to escape). I block them.

You have a receive receipt and a "read" receipt as extensions to the
RFC.

Exchange handles them internally (last time I set a server up, by
default) , so many organisations emails are sent out with the request.

However it's only an option in mail transport, and a lot of servers
that handle the mail on the way strip them out making them unreliable -
like email itself.

If you try to recall an internal email in Exchange/Outlook, it uses
that mechanism to report success or failure. If a recipient has a
preview pane in their Outlook (like what I did) then recall requests
fail. In my time I have seen a few emails that the sender desperately
tried to recall.

Ah, well I know nothing of Windows email. In any case, it sounds like a
false promise to me.

"Windows" email (i.e via exchange) is a superset of regular email. Works
lovely inside an organisation, but leads to some rather unrealistic
expectations from people with no exposure to the real world. Quite a few
people love to post about "recalling" emails sent to external email
recipients as if it's a given.

In message , "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
writes
Half the time it means nothing as few respect that flag.
I have noticed that NHS addresses are very intermittent both ways no matter
what email client I use, one in particular for my doctor has the same issue
whether I use my isp email or gmail.
Very peculiar.

I have looked at the message sent times to see if they coincide with
heavy wi-fi use here. My wife has discovered netflix and there are
regular remote school sessions with grandchildren etc.

Nothing jumps out.

--
Tim Lamb

On 11/02/2021 17:53, Tim Streater wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021 at 17:20:41 GMT, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 11/02/2021 11:53, Tim Streater wrote:

I tried this in a macOS Terminal window and got a similar line for a couple of
my domains, and "not found" for a couple of others (as you suggested might
happen). Perhaps that explains why I occasionally get an email from my ISP
saying that they have quarantined a mail as possible spam, but they'll send it
me if I really want it. And as you say, it doesn't really work worth a damn.

It isn't a great idea to be sending mail out that has SPF fail in the
headers since it results in plenty of corporate mail servers treating it
as spam or even worse dropping it on the floor without any notification.

I suggest you only use your domains with plausible SPF records for
sending mail and ask your ISP to sort out the ones that are defective.
(if you intend to send mail from them)

No no no. I'm not sending the mail, it's coming to me. But the ISP has decided
it's spam and is withholding adding it to the download server. Instead, they
send me a mail telling me they've done this, and if I really want it then I
should send a mail to their unquarantine service. They send me the subject and
from lines, usually enough to indicate it's spam, so I don't bother.

Examine the headers to see if it contains an SPF soft/hard failure
notification then possible something not unlike this:

authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 173.201.xxx.xxx)
smtp.mailfrom=redacted.co.uk; nonad.co.uk; dkim=none (message not
signed) header.d=none;nonad.co.uk; dmarc=none action=none
header.from=redacted.co.uk;compauth=fail reason=001
x-originating-ip: 91.85.xxx.xxx

It is only ever going to get more difficult for people with
misconfigured or entirely missing SPF records to send emails reliably.

I have to whitelist my non-tech savvy relatives who have a bad habit of
sending me emails with no subject title or ones that spammers use like
"Hello".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/02/2021 07:56, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
That sounds very unsatisfactory, nobody is going to delve that deep, surely
the folk using this need a rethink or at the very least send a bounce.
Brian


It has been implemented at ISP server level so you don't get much choice
about it. If you want your emails to get through corporate firewalls you
really need to have correctly configured SPF records on your domain.

It isn't quite rocket science but the system is tightening up now.

It caused people a lot of grief last month and was one of the reasons
that HMRC backed off their usual £100 extortion for late filing. Too
many accountants and client emails were going missing finalising info.

My own accountant was off sick with Covid for good measure.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
writes
Half the time it means nothing as few respect that flag.
I have noticed that NHS addresses are very intermittent both ways no
matter
what email client I use, one in particular for my doctor has the same
issue
whether I use my isp email or gmail.
Very peculiar.

I have looked at the message sent times to see if they coincide with
heavy wi-fi use here. My wife has discovered netflix and there are
regular remote school sessions with grandchildren etc.

Nothing jumps out.

A brief education on email transport.
IF as seems to be the case, your outbox is empty, and you received no
bounce message, the email has left the building, along with Elvis, and
has been accepted by the SMTP relay.

And there is nothi8 g you can do to affect its onward transit to
whatever black hole (are we allowed to say black hole?) it has ended up in.

The fact that no bounce has been recieved or even a 'your message is
delayed due to Brexit/Covid19/ClimateChange„¢' shows that it isnt stuck
on a server awaiting onward transit.

Three possibilities now exist

(i) The recipient is lying to you, and has received the email
(ii) The recipient has deleted it without looking at it
(iii) The recipient has it for whatever reason in his junk folder.
(iv) The recipient's mail server has junked it on his behalf.

Not that the big mail systems - yahoo, gmail, btinternet etc etc are all
massively arrogant and will and do reject and/or junk mail based on
whatever strange criteria they have set up.

links to websites in the body are a favourite no no.



--
€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�
Sir Roger Scruton

On 11/02/2021 22:28, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
Â*3 over the last 10 days.
Â*Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.
Â*I don't normally tick the *message read* box so there is no warning.

You are not giving us much to go on. I presume there was no bounce.
First question is are the missing emails in their spam box?
Might the email have been filtered for looking like spam?

Not mentioned. This was a commercial enquiry.

Certain SPF rules seem to have been tightened recently which was
causing some people problems if their SPF record was not exactly
right. Mainly when sending emails to other corporate sites with SPF
checking.

My mail is handled by Namesco.

Namesco handle my email (or rather they outsource it to MS Office365).
Your SPF record for the Namesco hosted domain should look identical to
mine. Other Namesco users I know all have OK looking SPF records.

I am puzzled why yours are defective. Raise a support ticket with them.
(or are some of your domains not under their admin control?)

BTW your Usenet posting address no longer exists!
Demonic domains were nuked some time ago.

Indeed:-(Â* After 27 years.
The Turnpike Newsgroup were willing to sort me out but traditionally
people munged their return addresses and it was simpler to leave it alone.

My munged Usenet email address is valid unmodified - despite appearances.
(do NOT remove "spam" from it like all the robots do)

It used to be even more hostile using the Unix pipe character "|" but
the MS Office server is much less forgiving on unusual characters.

If you send me a direct email from a failing domain I'll take a look at
your headers and corresponding SPF record. I seem to have been doing a
lot of this lately. Friends and relatives were having a lot of bother
with this sort of missing email in spam folder problem last month.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

It is remarkably reliable considering.

The only time I have had serious bother was way back when one over
zealous AV/netnanny product took exception to certain crude Anglosaxon 4
letter words appearing in MIME encoded binary content. The transition
threshold for unreliable transmission was about 500k (26^4).

Although you could sometimes just be unlucky with a shorter one.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/02/2021 22:23, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
Â*3 over the last 10 days.
Â*Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...

I don't think I've met "offline mode".

The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.



That is when you powerup Tbird and ignore the requests
to login to your various email providers, and just use
it offline, reading what you had previously downloaded,
and sending replies to email and usenet.

Then when you press F5 it gives you the login popups for
your internet/email providers and your new mails are
are sent, and new mail/ etc received.

I think you can also set up the interval where Tbird
sends /receives new mail/posts. During that internal
your outbound stuff just sits waiting, AFAIK. That's how
I thought it worked. Seems to for me.

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

It is remarkably reliable considering.

The only time I have had serious bother was way back when one over
zealous AV/netnanny product took exception to certain crude Anglosaxon 4
letter words appearing in MIME encoded binary content. The transition
threshold for unreliable transmission was about 500k (26^4).

Although you could sometimes just be unlucky with a shorter one.

Virgin didn't like 'Sussex'

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:08:30 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

It is remarkably reliable considering.

The only time I have had serious bother was way back when one over
zealous AV/netnanny product took exception to certain crude Anglosaxon
4 letter words appearing in MIME encoded binary content. The transition
threshold for unreliable transmission was about 500k (26^4).

Although you could sometimes just be unlucky with a shorter one.

Virgin didn't like 'Sussex'

Facebook have actually been banning people (for three days, I think) and
giving group admins hassle for talking about the Devils Dyke beauty spot
near Brighton. And Plymouth Hoe.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 12/02/2021 12:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:08:30 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

It is remarkably reliable considering.

The only time I have had serious bother was way back when one over
zealous AV/netnanny product took exception to certain crude Anglosaxon
4 letter words appearing in MIME encoded binary content. The transition
threshold for unreliable transmission was about 500k (26^4).

Although you could sometimes just be unlucky with a shorter one.

Virgin didn't like 'Sussex'

Facebook have actually been banning people (for three days, I think) and
giving group admins hassle for talking about the Devils Dyke beauty spot
near Brighton. And Plymouth Hoe.




S****horpe folks regularly had problems, and that
Austrian village lost so many signs they changed their name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S****horpe_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria

On 12/02/2021 07:59, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

Yes seen that one as well nearly always makes me chuckle when I see messages
like that. The other give away email is.
Your email of xxxx was deleted without being read by address on xxx
Not a good look for a customer services department of a council I'd say.

All emails sent to (National Savings and
Investments) receive the following automatic reply:

================================================== =======================
Coronavirus: sorry, we cant reply to most emails

We havent got as many of our customer service team available as usual,
so we cant offer our full range of services at the moment.

We will only reply to your email if it is:

* a complaint

* a request to cancel an account within the cooling off period

* a Freedom of Information request

* about your rights under the Data Protection Act

We will acknowledge your complaint within 5 days of receiving it. We aim
to respond within 15 working days for all complaints about electronic
payments to or from NS&I. For all other complaints, we will aim to
resolve this to your satisfaction within 35 working days. However, this
may take us longer at the moment due to the coronavirus outbreak, as we
are working with much smaller teams.

We wont be able to reply to emails on any other subject. We cannot
answer any account specific queries by email.
================================================== =======================

However they don't explain how you send an email concerning one of the
permitted categories, as everything gets the same automatic reply.

--
Max Demian

On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

Actually it isn't.

Its the anti-spam that has made it so

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 12/02/2021 12:15, Bob Eager wrote:
Facebook have actually been banning people (for three days, I think) and
giving group admins hassle for talking about the Devils Dyke beauty spot
near Brighton. And Plymouth Hoe.

Don't start discussing the delights of S****horpe then.
I knew a bloke from S****horpe, years ago.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 12/02/2021 12:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:47:17 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

It is remarkably reliable considering.

And all the more dangerous for it.

"Unreliable" means that unless you build up some proprietary layers
around it, you can't guarantee a sent email has been received.

See also: SMS

That does not make it unreliable.
Back in the day when we were putting it up against X400, the standard
FUD from the big boys was 'but you get no guarantee of receipt'
I said 'but it gets through ten times more often'

Dropping mail silently contravenes the protocol. But it is exactly what
big mail servers and spam filters do


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...

I don't think I've met "offline mode".

The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.

Examine the items in the Sent folder carefully.

Do the items have a "newsgroup:" line in them ?

Thunderbird is notorious for mixing up reply and followup
and emails end up going to newsgroups or vice versa.

Using the message in the Sent, see if you can figure
out what subsystem it was headed to.

Paul

On 12/02/2021 14:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:26:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

Actually it isn't.

You left the explanation off.

Its the anti-spam that has made it so

Not really. It was unreliable from the first RFC. Way before the unwashed
got their mitts on it.

No, it wasn't. It offered no guarantees, but the way it was implemented
(which is nothing to do with the RFCS) made it inherently reliable. Any
sendmail instance would store and forward. If it couldn't forward, it
would bounce.

Other so called 'guaranteed' protocols exhibited the opposite problem.
The lack of a guarantee of delivery was as likely to be a fault on the
return trip as the forward.



--
€œThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

In message , Paul
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...
I don't think I've met "offline mode".
The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.

Examine the items in the Sent folder carefully.

OK

Do the items have a "newsgroup:" line in them ?

No. Just my mail address.

Thunderbird is notorious for mixing up reply and followup
and emails end up going to newsgroups or vice versa.

Using the message in the Sent, see if you can figure
out what subsystem it was headed to.

Beyond my competence! Straight forward mail address that has worked
before.

Because this was a commercial enquiry, I wonder if mail is being
re-directed from their office to a home computer and someone didn't do
the necessary?

Paul


--
Tim Lamb

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

Actually it isn't.

Its the anti-spam that has made it so

gmail's anti spam is surprisingly reliable.

Never had it claim any email was spam when it wasn't

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 05:47:59 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Paul
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...
I don't think I've met "offline mode".
The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.

Examine the items in the Sent folder carefully.

OK

Do the items have a "newsgroup:" line in them ?

No. Just my mail address.

Thunderbird is notorious for mixing up reply and followup
and emails end up going to newsgroups or vice versa.

Using the message in the Sent, see if you can figure
out what subsystem it was headed to.

Beyond my competence! Straight forward mail address that has worked
before.

You mean straightforward or really straight forward, not the same
thing at all.

--
Chris Green
·

In message , Chris Green
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Paul
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
3 over the last 10 days.
Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...
I don't think I've met "offline mode".
The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.

Examine the items in the Sent folder carefully.

OK

Do the items have a "newsgroup:" line in them ?

No. Just my mail address.

Thunderbird is notorious for mixing up reply and followup
and emails end up going to newsgroups or vice versa.

Using the message in the Sent, see if you can figure
out what subsystem it was headed to.

Beyond my competence! Straight forward mail address that has worked
before.

You mean straightforward or really straight forward, not the same
thing at all.
I got a 3 at English "O" level but it wasn't much to do with grammar!

This was a *reply* to an incoming mail to which I added a PDF
attachment.


--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
On 12 Feb 2021 at 18:47:59 GMT, "Fred" wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

Actually it isn't.

Its the anti-spam that has made it so

gmail's anti spam is surprisingly reliable.

Never had it claim any email was spam when it wasn't

I prefer making the deicsion on my own machine, not having someone else
deciding for me what is and what is not spam.

I find it more convenient to have the system
do it when its as reliable as the gmail one is.

On Friday, 12 February 2021 at 14:32:41 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dropping mail silently contravenes the protocol. But it is exactly what
big mail servers and spam filters do

How would you expect/prefer them to behave?

Given that large mail providers can't perform filtering during receipt of mail (i.e. whilst the SMTP dialogue is still underway) if a message is subsequently found to be spam it can't be sent back to the purported sender as this is likely to fake and quarantining everything doesn't really work for anyone (mail platform or recipient) given the volumes involved.

I run a mail server and silently drop (as in don't deliver to the recipient or bounce) the 'spammiest of spam' and have never knowingly had a single false positive. I would expect large mail platforms to perform just as well. False positives for 'possibly spam' are few and far between these days too (and usually down to the poorly configured sender domains/software).

On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 09:16:18 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 12/02/2021 20:49, Tim Lamb wrote:
This was a *reply* to an incoming mail to which I added a PDF attachment.

PDF attachment? Obviously seriously pervy spam!

Or possibly simply TOO BIG


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 12/02/2021 22:18, Mathew Newton wrote:
On Friday, 12 February 2021 at 14:32:41 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dropping mail silently contravenes the protocol. But it is exactly what
big mail servers and spam filters do

How would you expect/prefer them to behave?
Bounce, or inform recipient

Given that large mail providers can't perform filtering during receipt of mail (i.e. whilst the SMTP dialogue is still underway)
They could if they wanted to

if a message is subsequently found to be spam it can't be sent back to
the purported sender as this is likely to fake and quarantining
everything doesn't really work for anyone (mail platform or recipient)
given the volumes involved.

I run a mail server and silently drop (as in don't deliver to the recipient or bounce) the 'spammiest of spam' and have never knowingly had a single false positive. I would expect large mail platforms to perform just as well. False positives for 'possibly spam' are few and far between these days too (and usually down to the poorly configured sender domains/software).



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 13/02/2021 09:00, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 Feb 2021 at 22:18:26 GMT, Mathew Newton
wrote:

On Friday, 12 February 2021 at 14:32:41 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dropping mail silently contravenes the protocol. But it is exactly what
big mail servers and spam filters do

How would you expect/prefer them to behave?

Given that large mail providers can't perform filtering during receipt of mail (i.e. whilst the SMTP dialogue is still underway) if a message is subsequently found to be spam ...

What d'ye mean "subsequently found to be spam"? It's not the business of an
email transporter to have an opinion about what is spam or not. That's a
matter for the recipient, whose job it is to train their email client to do
the filtering.

I think that ISPs and other email providers *can* accurately define and
delete at least some spam and I am quite happy with them doing that.

They set up multiple unused email accounts and see what drops into them.
If multiple of these accounts receive the same (or mostly the same)
email, then it is spam - how else would multiple accounts, that have
never had their addresses released into the outside world, get those
emails otherwise?

On 12/02/2021 20:49, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Chris Green
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Paul
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes
On 11/02/2021 09:30, Tim Lamb wrote:
Anyone else?
Â* 3 over the last 10 days.
Â* Messages sent using Thunderbird but said not to be received by the
addressee.


Make sure Thunderbird is not in 'off-line' mode?

If you see sent items remaining in the Outbox ...
Â* I don't think I've met "offline mode".
Â* The messages have found their way to my sent file ok.

Examine the items in the Sent folder carefully.

OK

Do the items have a "newsgroup:" line in them ?

No. Just my mail address.

Thunderbird is notorious for mixing up reply and followup
and emails end up going to newsgroups or vice versa.

Using the message in the Sent, see if you can figure
out what subsystem it was headed to.

Beyond my competence! Straight forward mail address that has worked
before.

You mean straightforward or really straight forward, not the same
thing at all.
I got a 3 at English "O" level but it wasn't much to do with grammar!

This was a *reply* to an incoming mail to which I added a PDF attachment.



You failed the "it's intuitive" test :-)

Fred wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
On 12 Feb 2021 at 18:47:59 GMT, "Fred" wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2021 11:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:29:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2021 08:50, Tim Lamb wrote:
[quoted text muted]
A brief education on email transport.

Start with it being inherently unreliable

Actually it isn't.

Its the anti-spam that has made it so

gmail's anti spam is surprisingly reliable.

Never had it claim any email was spam when it wasn't

I prefer making the deicsion on my own machine, not having someone else
deciding for me what is and what is not spam.

I find it more convenient to have the system
do it when its as reliable as the gmail one is.

I have unfiltered mail delivered to me from my hosting service, I
simply reject anything not specifically to me (I do include stuff that
*might* be for me by allowing To: cgreen, To: cris, etc.) and then I
just filter it myself, by looking at it.

I do get some junk but probably only 10% of the fairly large amount of
mail I handle so it's just not an issue. An efficient, text mode,
mail program helps, huge complicated graphical mails don't waste time
getting displayed, if I open it I see the text content but that's all.
I can decide to see the pictures if I want but that's pretty rare
unless a friend has actually sent me some pictures. All I have to do
to get rid of an unwanted mail is hit 'd' and it's gone, so deleting
junk is pretty instantaneous.

--
Chris Green
·

On 13/02/2021 11:15, Steve Walker wrote:
They set up multiple unused email accounts and see what drops into them.
If multiple of these accounts receive the same (or mostly the same)
email, then it is spam - how else would multiple accounts, that have
never had their addresses released into the outside world, get those
emails otherwise?

No. I have had emails to gmail fail because

- an attachment was too big
- it had an attachment at all
- it contained a URL

in many cases no hint except a 'where's my email' from the recipient
occurred.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.