mccann_dg
asked on
E-mail/DNS delivery problem
We moved authoritative DNS servers on Friday and ever since we cannot send to one of our bigger clients. It appears that they are performing reverse-lookups on incoming mail and they are denying delivery with a message that says:
<xxx@bigclient.com>:
160.62.1.168 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 5.1.8 <xxx@bigclient.com>... Domain of sender address my-email@glen-eagle.com does not exist
then the rest of the header:
Return-Path: <my-email@glen-eagle.com>
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: my-email@glen-eagle.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-84.messagel
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.225.84.20]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.2 required=7.0 tests=HTML_80_90,HTML_MESS
Received: (qmail 28326 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2004 12:26:26 -0000
Received: from glen-eagle.com (HELO linux.glen-eagle-va.com) (66.225.84.20)
by server-4.tower-84.messagel
Received: from DGMR40 ([10.10.10.159])
by linux.glen-eagle-va.com (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id iA7CQTY14324
for <xxx@bigclient.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:26:29 -0500
Return-Receipt-To: "Drew McCann" <my-email@glen-eagle.com>
From: "Drew McCann" <my-email@glen-eagle.com>
To: <xxx@bigclient.com>
Subject: test
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:26:26 -0500
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AcTDiww9MzhWmAM3Qj2qQq6HGq
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Disposition-Notification-T
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
This client does use messagelabs.com to process their incoming mail. However, I spoke with the messagelabs folks and they confirmed that they are accepting the message and delivering it to the destination server and that the destination server is the one rejecting it.
Our DNS is currently at zoneedit.com and it looks like everything is set up properly. Need to resolve this today.
Thanks,
Drew
<xxx@bigclient.com>:
160.62.1.168 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 5.1.8 <xxx@bigclient.com>... Domain of sender address my-email@glen-eagle.com does not exist
then the rest of the header:
Return-Path: <my-email@glen-eagle.com>
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: my-email@glen-eagle.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-84.messagel
X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [66.225.84.20]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.2 required=7.0 tests=HTML_80_90,HTML_MESS
Received: (qmail 28326 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2004 12:26:26 -0000
Received: from glen-eagle.com (HELO linux.glen-eagle-va.com) (66.225.84.20)
by server-4.tower-84.messagel
Received: from DGMR40 ([10.10.10.159])
by linux.glen-eagle-va.com (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id iA7CQTY14324
for <xxx@bigclient.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:26:29 -0500
Return-Receipt-To: "Drew McCann" <my-email@glen-eagle.com>
From: "Drew McCann" <my-email@glen-eagle.com>
To: <xxx@bigclient.com>
Subject: test
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:26:26 -0500
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AcTDiww9MzhWmAM3Qj2qQq6HGq
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Disposition-Notification-T
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
This client does use messagelabs.com to process their incoming mail. However, I spoke with the messagelabs folks and they confirmed that they are accepting the message and delivering it to the destination server and that the destination server is the one rejecting it.
Our DNS is currently at zoneedit.com and it looks like everything is set up properly. Need to resolve this today.
Thanks,
Drew
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
OK.. things are starting to work again. Sembee, thank you for that link.. it has some very good information. I am going to split points on this (with a higher weight toward Sembee) because what I think happened was that the irregular configuration reported in Sembee's post caused the record to take much longer to update than expected.. thereby reinforcing rid's comment about the amount of time it can take (but really shouldnt) to update DNS records. Thanks again.
ASKER
#1: This change was made on Friday and we began having the problem within a few hours... which means that their DNS cache updated at some point on Friday. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that they are not updating their cache at least once every 24 hours.
#2: I am getting a lot less spam than normal. However.. all other e-mail address I have sent to and received from have worked.
Thanks,
Drew