BT internet blocking some incoming emails

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by NY, Sep 5, 2014.

  1. NY

    NY Guest

    Has anyone experienced problems with BT Internet blocking some incoming
    emails to btinternet.com addresses?

    I've got a customer whose ISP is BT. He has several email addresses (one
    master and several slave addresses) associated with this.

    He's just taken out a domain with 123 and has a mailbox with them. So I've
    set up an Outlook account to receive from 123's POP and to send via 123's
    SMTP; in the latter case with SMTP authentication (same as POP) turned on
    and using port 465 and SSL (on 123's advice).

    Incoming emails to this address work fine. From this account he can send
    emails to non-BT addresses and they get through fine. But emails to his BT
    addresses disappear into a black hole with no error message. Emails sent
    from an Outlook account that uses BT's SMTP server and quotes a BT "from"
    address to any address (BT, or non BT, including the domain address) work
    fine.

    123's logging shows that they send to BT's servers and get a receipt
    acknowledgement, so it looks as if the blockage is at BT's end.

    Does anyone know of a problem with BT's servers accepting email from some
    addresses?

    One added complication is that so far as I've been testing it, I've been
    connected over my own Plusnet connection (I've borrowed his laptop to
    investigate) and the IP address quoted in the email is on a blocked IP list
    (apparently), so I'm waiting to retry it from the customer's BT connection
    and therefore with a BT-allocated IP. However it failed initially from his
    line, even when initially sending via BT's SMTP server using a BT email
    address and password as an authentication address - again, with no error
    message. But it was on 123's advice that I switched to their SMTP - shame
    because it meant the customer has to pay for a mailbox whereas mail
    forwarding to a BT account (which is free) works fine for incoming mail but
    fails in the same way for outgoing.


    How good are BT at investigating this sort of thing: can the first-line
    support escalate things to people who can investigate this? And do they have
    a means of raising support calls from a web site rather than having to hang
    on the phone for ages and then explain the problem to someone whose first
    language isn't English?
     
    NY, Sep 5, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. NY

    Davey Guest

    I had a similar problem in the US with AT&T, sorry, att&t. They would
    block whole blocks of IP addresses because one was deemed by them to
    be a spam source, but they wouldn't tell anybody.
    Was I glad to get back to the UK, with a choice of ISP, not the one
    that supplied the 'phone line. Land of the Free? Pah!

    If my att&t experience is any indication, BT will be of no help
    whatsoever. Good Luck!
     
    Davey, Sep 5, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. NY

    NY Guest

    Oh thanks for those kind words ;-)

    It takes a special kind of stupid to block IP addresses that they themselves
    have issued, if that's what the cause turns out to be.

    I'm glad it's turned out to be a BT problem and not a 123 problem since I
    was the one that mentioned the name 123 (amongst others) to the customer. On
    the other hand, 123's investigation of the problem so far, as I've been
    trying to point the finger of guilt, has been superb, so if it had turned
    out to be their problem at least it would probably have been fixed in a
    similarly competent manner.
     
    NY, Sep 5, 2014
    #3
  4. NY

    Davey Guest

    at&t also put one of its own Update messages into the Spam folder. So
    stupid seems to come with the territory!

    Again, Good Luck.
     
    Davey, Sep 5, 2014
    #4
  5. NY

    bert Guest

    I take it you've done the obvious and checked the account spam folder.
    BT's filters area bit aggressive
     
    bert, Sep 6, 2014
    #5
  6. NY

    NY Guest

    The weird thing is that the email was not arriving in either the inbox *or*
    the spam folder. I found a workaround: I defined the sender's email address
    as a "safe sender" on the webmail "settings | mail | safe senders" page.
    That worked.

    But it's not the right solution: I imagine that the same problem could
    affect *any* BT address that the sender sends to. I've emailed BT support to
    ask them to fix their spam filter properly so it's not necessary to add it
    as a safe sender for each of the customer's BT addresses. Let's see what
    their reply is... I've also asked why the email disappeared completely
    instead of being received at least in the spam folder if not the inbox - it
    should have gone to one or the other.
     
    NY, Sep 6, 2014
    #6
  7. NY

    Flop Guest

    On 06/09/2014 22:08, NY wrote:

    I've emailed BT support to ask them to fix their spam filter properly.


    What makes you think they will get it?
     
    Flop, Sep 7, 2014
    #7
  8. On 06/09/2014 22:08, NY wrote:
    --8<--SNIP--8<--
    I believe BT use these folk for email filtering/edge protection -
    http://owmessaging.com/

    Could possibly be due to how they have this configured? Failing that
    Openwave might not like 123's SMTP servers for one reason or another.
    It's odd to accept the message though, rather than reject it at the SMTP
    layer.

    Having said that, I'm a tad confused, you say the email gets lost in an
    abyss, yet you then go on to say:
    IP address quoted in /what/ email? This reads to me that you're
    receiving some sort of NDR or failure reason?

    Note that the IP of your Plusnet connection or otherwise should be
    largely irrelevant here.

    Broadband connection -> Local SMTP server -> Remote MTA -> Recipient

    Any IP checking should be done by the Remote MTA and the IP it should be
    checking is that of the local SMTP server and *not* that of your
    broadband connection (which I would expect to be on various blacklists
    because it's probably dynamic and shouldn't be used to sent mail directly).
     
    Plusnet Support Team, Sep 8, 2014
    #8
  9. NY

    NY Guest

    123 seemed to imply that my IP address was the one that was being passed to
    the remote MTA and then perhaps being rejected because it's blacklisted.
    This is based on the test emails that I sent from PC via (in this case) my
    Plusnet connection to 123's SMTP server (where it appeared on 123's
    diagnostic log) for onward delivery to BT's remote MTA and the recipient.
    This is why they wondered whether results would be any different if I
    repeated the test with exactly the same PC config but connected to the
    customer's BT connection - but it didn't make any difference.

    I've not heard back from the customer as to how/whether BT have responded to
    the support request that I made.

    The fact that BT block the email until I add the sender's address to a "safe
    sender's" list suggests that their spam blocking is seeing the newly created
    domain referred to in the sender's email address (which is of the form
    ) and rejecting it until proved to be safe by being in the
    safe sender's list. Surely the better strategy is to accept email from any
    address unless proved to be bad, rather than reject from any address unless
    proved to be good.
     
    NY, Sep 8, 2014
    #9
  10. Any "strategy" that results in mail being rejected without notification to
    either the sender or the addressee is one that is unfit for service. GMail
    enjoys the combination of excellent spam detection with nothing ever getting
    lost.
     
    Anthony R. Gold, Sep 9, 2014
    #10
  11. NY

    NY Guest

    Agreed. And what a surprise. My customer has just reported that BT Internet
    *still* haven't responded to the support call - indeed it seems to have
    disappeared altogether. What a crap ISP :-(
     
    NY, Sep 9, 2014
    #11
  12. I received an email advertising some holidays.

    123-reg forwarded the email to a Plusnet and a Btinternet email account.

    I saw the email on the Plusnet a/c and booked the holiday, which I enjoyed.

    The spam filters on the Btinternet a/c stopped the email arriving at my PC.

    The only good thing about the Btinternet a/c is that it is still free
    despite BT threatening to introduce charges last April.
     
    Michael Chare, Sep 12, 2014
    #12
  13. NY

    7 Guest


    I had similar problems with outgoing emails and then discovered
    BT* have registered all their dynamic addresses as source of spam
    with spamhause so anyone sending emails out from one of those
    IP addresses is likely not be sending emails. *BT = Plusnet!!
    Other ISPs go further and block incoming emails as well I discovered.

    The way to get around the difficulties is to buy a mail relay
    server service from a service provider. They make sure emails
    are filtered from spam and deal with users who are spammers.
    That way they keep their IP addresses clean from any blocked list.
    If you route emails through those servers, normally you can use
    different ports and you can skip any intentional blocking by ISPs like BT*.
     
    7, Sep 13, 2014
    #13
  14. NY

    7 Guest

    alexd wrote:


    Therefore you are out of date.
     
    7, Sep 13, 2014
    #14
  15. yes, and spahaus routinely wars of any address known to be part of a
    dynamic pool.

    You dont have to register: they have em listed already.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Sep 13, 2014
    #15
  16. NY

    7 Guest

    Jeeez! Wake up! You been told the answer already!!

    Normally someone has to register a complaint with
    spamhaus to have an ip address black listed.

    Management trolls in BT have gone the extra mile and voluntarily
    blacklisted all their dynamic IP addresses as belonging
    to spammers.

    So if you buy a BT line then you must be a spammer.

    No piles of money belonging to Management trolls
    have been harmed in bringing you this news (TM).
     
    7, Sep 14, 2014
    #16
  17. NY

    Bob Eager Guest

    I was going to argue that dynamic IP addresses are usually treated like
    this. Then I saw who was posting. It's our regular troll, "7", who
    clearly hasn't gone back to school yet.

    So let's ignore him!
     
    Bob Eager, Sep 14, 2014
    #17
  18. NY

    7 Guest

    alexd wrote:

    Its been on the house for some time!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

    You know so much about spam blocking!!!



    I keep it in my trouser pocket for rainy days like this.
     
    7, Sep 14, 2014
    #18
  19. NY

    7 Guest

    Bob Eager wrote:


    Ugh oh!

    Bob Eager has lit her bra again! ;)

    Why does an internet troll like you "Bob Eager" keep cross
    dressing like a woman to post in uk.telecom.broadband?

    Don't you know it is illegal to post internet abuse on behalf
    of big corporatons in UK for money?

    FYI this guy just recently got arrested.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/09...tawa-cyberbully-facing-181-charges-apologizes
    He tried to relocate to Canada just to do his trolling.
    Still ended up in the dock and now he apologised like a woooman!
    Thats good for trolling kind I hear :)
     
    7, Sep 14, 2014
    #19
  20. It is certainly possible to say that 'no port 25 traffic to anyone
    except our relays' BUT...then you cant use anyone else's relays.


    And patently BT users CAN use other relays. That they can authenticate
    against.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Sep 14, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.