Gmail error sending mail to Microsoft.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Waylon Kenning, Sep 21, 2005.

  1. Hey peoples,

    I just tried sending an email to someone at Microsoft and got an error
    like (note, this isn't my email, this is a similar one I found on the
    internet from http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/DevilsRejection)

    >This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification
    >
    >THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.
    >
    >YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.
    >
    >Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:
    >
    >
    >
    >Message will be retried for 1 more day(s)
    >
    >Technical details of temporary failure:
    >TEMP_FAILURE: Probe failed: Too many resources/connections in use for: microsoft.com
    >
    > ----- Message header follows -----
    >
    >Received: by 10.37.21.63 with SMTP id y63mr1633941nzi;
    > Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
    >Received: by 10.36.104.11 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
    >Message-ID: <>
    >Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:39:21 -0500
    >From: Stefan Constantinescu <>
    >Reply-To:
    >To:
    >Subject: rss and a few ideas about it
    >Mime-Version: 1.0
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
    >Content-Disposition: inline
    >
    > ----- Message body suppressed -----


    What does this mean? Did the email get though?
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
     
    Waylon Kenning, Sep 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Waylon Kenning

    Shane Guest

    On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:22:09 +1200, Waylon Kenning wrote:

    > Hey peoples,
    >
    > I just tried sending an email to someone at Microsoft and got an error
    > like (note, this isn't my email, this is a similar one I found on the
    > internet from http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/DevilsRejection)
    >
    >>This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification
    >>
    >>THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.
    >>
    >>YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.
    >>
    >>Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Message will be retried for 1 more day(s)
    >>
    >>Technical details of temporary failure: TEMP_FAILURE: Probe failed: Too
    >>many resources/connections in use for: microsoft.com
    >>
    >> ----- Message header follows -----
    >>
    >>Received: by 10.37.21.63 with SMTP id y63mr1633941nzi;
    >> Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
    >>Received: by 10.36.104.11 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:39:21 -0700
    >>(PDT) Message-ID: <> Date: Sat,
    >>17 Sep 2005 16:39:21 -0500 From: Stefan Constantinescu
    >><> Reply-To:
    >>To:
    >>Subject: rss and a few ideas about it Mime-Version: 1.0
    >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding:
    >>base64
    >>Content-Disposition: inline
    >>
    >> ----- Message body suppressed -----

    >
    > What does this mean? Did the email get though? --
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Waylon Kenning.


    Nah.. its been delayed
    And the server will retry sending it for another 24 hours
    But Im not sure which end of the transaction failed
    One end had too many concurrent connections


    HTH

    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, Sep 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > What does this mean? Did the email get though?
    > --
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Waylon Kenning.


    Most likely the receipient server is offline. Until you get a *final
    failure notice* you don't have to worry. Some smtp servers send out a
    message like this if they can't deliver within 4 hours.

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
     
    Peter Huebner, Sep 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter Huebner wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >>What does this mean? Did the email get though?
    >>--
    >>Cheers,
    >>
    >>Waylon Kenning.

    >
    >
    > Most likely the receipient server is offline. Until you get a *final


    Don't think so. Microsoft has at least 6 front end SMTP servers,
    unlikely they are all offline at once.

    That error message (TEMP_FAILURE: Probe failed: Too many
    resources/connections in use for: microsoft.com) doesn't even look like
    a "normal" SMTP error. I think its most likely a Google Gmail issue

    > failure notice* you don't have to worry. Some smtp servers send out a
    > message like this if they can't deliver within 4 hours.


    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Waylon Kenning

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Peter Huebner wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >>What does this mean? Did the email get though?
    >>--
    >>Cheers,
    >>
    >>Waylon Kenning.

    >
    >
    > Most likely the receipient server is offline. Until you get a *final
    > failure notice* you don't have to worry. Some smtp servers send out a
    > message like this if they can't deliver within 4 hours.


    Heh. Funny coincidence. I got this bounce earlier today in response to
    a support e-mail:

    This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

    <>:
    131.107.3.125 does not like recipient.
    Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
    Giving up on 131.107.3.125.

    (131.107.3.125 is mail1.microsoft.com)
     
    Stu Fleming, Sep 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Stu Fleming wrote:
    >> Most likely the receipient server is offline. Until you get a *final
    >> failure notice* you don't have to worry. Some smtp servers send out a
    >> message like this if they can't deliver within 4 hours.

    >
    >
    > Heh. Funny coincidence. I got this bounce earlier today in response to
    > a support e-mail:
    >
    > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
    >
    > <>:
    > 131.107.3.125 does not like recipient.
    > Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
    > Giving up on 131.107.3.125.
    >
    > (131.107.3.125 is mail1.microsoft.com)


    Looks like Microsoft Exchange Intelligent Mail (antispam) Filter is
    working well.

    It doesn't look like there is such a recipient as

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Waylon Kenning

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:27:56 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > Looks like Microsoft Exchange Intelligent Mail (antispam) Filter is
    > working well.


    Hmmm... MS ExIM.

    I think MS should've come out with MS Post Office Spam Tram For Intenet
    eXchanges instead :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 23, 2005
    #7
  8. lol, actually the acronym is IMF (for Intelligent Mail Filter)
    PS now it does antiphishing as part of Exchange 2003 SP2

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Waylon Kenning

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:52:26 +1200, AD. wrote:

    > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:27:56 +1200, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> Looks like Microsoft Exchange Intelligent Mail (antispam) Filter is
    >> working well.

    >
    > Hmmm... MS ExIM.
    >
    > I think MS should've come out with MS Post Office Spam Tram For Intenet
    > eXchanges instead :)


    Doh! That should read Trap not Tram :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Waylon Kenning

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > Stu Fleming wrote:
    >
    >>> Most likely the receipient server is offline. Until you get a *final
    >>> failure notice* you don't have to worry. Some smtp servers send out a
    >>> message like this if they can't deliver within 4 hours.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Heh. Funny coincidence. I got this bounce earlier today in response
    >> to a support e-mail:
    >>
    >> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
    >>
    >> <>:
    >> 131.107.3.125 does not like recipient.
    >> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
    >> Giving up on 131.107.3.125.
    >>
    >> (131.107.3.125 is mail1.microsoft.com)

    >
    >
    > Looks like Microsoft Exchange Intelligent Mail (antispam) Filter is
    > working well.
    >
    > It doesn't look like there is such a recipient as


    From an e-mail from Microsoft Support:

    Thank you for contacting Microsoft Technical Support services. We have
    recently updated our online support service and we are no longer
    accepting service requests via this email address. To submit your
    technical enquiry, please log your request at
    http://support.microsoft.com/oas.

    If you have any problems or questions about logging a service request
    online please contact one of our customer service representatives on 13
    20 58 (Australia) or 0800 800 004 (New Zealand) email our customer
    service team at .
     
    Stu Fleming, Sep 23, 2005
    #10
  11. In article <>, Stu Fleming <>
    wrote:

    >This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


    Qmail! Isn't that obsolete?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Waylon Kenning

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <>, Stu Fleming <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

    >
    >
    > Qmail! Isn't that obsolete?


    Ask Yahoo.
     
    Stu Fleming, Sep 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Stu Fleming wrote:
    > >>> Most likely the receipient server is offline. Until you get a *final
    > >>> failure notice* you don't have to worry. Some smtp servers send out a
    > >>> message like this if they can't deliver within 4 hours.
    > >>
    > >> Heh. Funny coincidence. I got this bounce earlier today in response
    > >> to a support e-mail:
    > >>
    > >> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
    > >>
    > >> <>:
    > >> 131.107.3.125 does not like recipient.
    > >> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown
    > >> Giving up on 131.107.3.125.
    > >>
    > >> (131.107.3.125 is mail1.microsoft.com)

    > >
    > > Looks like Microsoft Exchange Intelligent Mail (antispam) Filter is
    > > working well.
    > >
    > > It doesn't look like there is such a recipient as

    >
    > From an e-mail from Microsoft Support:
    >
    > Thank you for contacting Microsoft Technical Support services. We have
    > recently updated our online support service and we are no longer
    > accepting service requests via this email address. To submit your
    > technical enquiry, please log your request at
    > http://support.microsoft.com/oas.
    >
    > If you have any problems or questions about logging a service request
    > online please contact one of our customer service representatives on 13
    > 20 58 (Australia) or 0800 800 004 (New Zealand) email our customer
    > service team at .


    Exchange Server is SMTP RFC compliant so it gives a RFC-compliant
    response

    550 5.1.1 ... User unknown

    that contactus@ address really doesn't exist, the servers weren't
    offline. Maybe they meant to say microsoft.co.nz or microsoft.com.au,
    which have completely different MX records.

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 25, 2005
    #13
  14. Stu Fleming wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In article <>, Stu Fleming <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

    >>
    >>
    >> Qmail! Isn't that obsolete?

    >
    > Ask Yahoo.


    Found the following item, linked from the alt.sysadmin.recovery FAQ, about
    mentioning the "q" word:
    <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sysadmin.recovery/msg/ba3eec13a15e0d22>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 25, 2005
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


    > Qmail! Isn't that obsolete?


    It may be a modified version... Google seem to modify everything they
    get their hands on :)

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 25, 2005
    #15
  16. Waylon Kenning

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:19:29 +1200, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

    >
    >> Qmail! Isn't that obsolete?

    >
    > It may be a modified version... Google seem to modify everything they get
    > their hands on :)


    Anyone that runs qmail pretty much has to run a modified version.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 25, 2005
    #16
  17. Waylon Kenning

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Stu Fleming wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>, Stu Fleming <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Qmail! Isn't that obsolete?

    >>
    >>Ask Yahoo.

    >
    >
    > Found the following item, linked from the alt.sysadmin.recovery FAQ, about
    > mentioning the "q" word:
    > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sysadmin.recovery/msg/ba3eec13a15e0d22>


    Hehe. Challenge: scale an Exchange server to 100K mailboxes and 10
    million message transactions per day. Scale a qmail server to do the
    same. Compare structure.
     
    Stu Fleming, Sep 26, 2005
    #17
  18. Waylon Kenning

    Stu Fleming Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown
    >
    > that contactus@ address really doesn't exist, the servers weren't
    > offline. Maybe they meant to say microsoft.co.nz or microsoft.com.au,
    > which have completely different MX records.


    Looks like it:
    <http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22contactus%40microsoft.com%22&btnG=Search&meta=>
     
    Stu Fleming, Sep 26, 2005
    #18
  19. Waylon Kenning

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:13:33 +1200, Stu Fleming wrote:

    > Hehe. Challenge: scale an Exchange server to 100K mailboxes and 10
    > million message transactions per day. Scale a qmail server to do the
    > same. Compare structure.


    That could be tricky - qmail doesn't do mailboxes. It is just an MTA.

    Even though I don't like Exchange - that is a long way from an apples to
    apples comparison.

    Someone using qmail and dealing with 100k mailboxes and 10M messages a day
    would be a centralised ISP (eg 5 or 10MB POP3 mailboxes that on average
    would only get a few connections a day), while someone else using Exchange
    for that would be a very distributed large corporate (with 100MB+
    mailboxes,calendars,public folders, LDAP directories etc accessed
    constantly all day).

    The two environments are very different in terms of what they have to do.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 27, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. blacjac

    problem sending mail from netscape mail

    blacjac, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    623
    docmill
    Jan 31, 2004
  2. kritaly

    gmail blocks .rar files from non-gmail address

    kritaly, Aug 17, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,734
    Barry OGrady
    Aug 18, 2005
  3. Ramkumar

    Accessing GMail account from GMail Groups

    Ramkumar, Sep 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,733
    Mike Easter
    Sep 25, 2005
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    566
    VanguardLH
    Dec 28, 2007
  5. thing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,094
    thing
    Dec 1, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page