Emails to gmail randomly disappearing

[#1]

From some time on May, my messages to all gmail accounts simply vanished - no bounce, nothing in receiver's spam.  I have a non-PlusNet domain name which I use for the "From" address but send via the PlusNet servers.

I found This post about adding an SPF record to the domain.  I did this and I was then able to receive email on my own (free) gmail account.  However, it seems random whether other people receive my messages.  Of about six other addresses I have tried, approximately half of them arrive with no problem, the others again vanish.

Is there some other SPF element that is missing?

[#2]

Why are you using Plusnet SMTP servers to send as a third party domain name?  You should be using the third party's SMTP services.

You are experiencing the random behaviour of Gmail's behaviour in respect of their free Gmail services - they have published clearly that they will RANDOMLY IMPOSE the requirement of OPTIONAL RFCs on inbound mail.  Best recommendation is to ditch free Gmail accounts.

A pragmatic solution is to use your domain provider's own SMTP servers.

[#3]

@softhedgehog 

Your link is for adding a SPF record to a Plusnet hosted domain. For third party domains use this. https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/SPF-record/m-p/1741932#M31139

@Townman 

I have a namesco domain that comes with free email addresses with limited storage. There is no free smpt service to match so if I use this I send through Plusnet’s server citing my namesco address as the sender.

[#4]

I suspect that my link might not have pointed to the exact replay that I was following.  I think that the result is the same since I have

v=spf1 a mx include:_spf-internal.plus.net include:_spf-internal2.plus.net ~all

on my domain name.

My domain name provider does not provide SMTP services (nor storage for emails, only the addresses) which is why I doing things as I do.  Also I can't prevent others from using free gmail accounts 🙄

[#5 · Accepted solution]

@softhedgehog 

Are you using these settings for your email client send settings? https://www.plus.net/help/email-guides/how-to-set-up-plusnet-email/

Note SMTP authentication should be ON.

[#6]

I had all except the authentication (not sure how I missed that).  One of the recipients got a message after I sent it, so maybe we are fixed now.  I'll have to see whether that was simply a random success.

[#7]

@softhedgehog and @Baldrick1 

I think that you have answered my question most eloquently:

You have your domain names hosted somewhere else where the hosting company only facilitates email forwarding and declines to offer the means to send emails for free.  The then consequences of attempting to send using that domain name becomes the support problem of the service you have chosen as the target of the email redirection service.

In short their reluctance to offer a proper email service becomes someone else's problem, when Gmail starts imposing non-mandatory standards.  There is nothing quite like passing the buck!

[#8]

@Townman 

To be fair to, in my case, Namesco, it is a freebie add on. I did have the option of paying for a proper email service. I do not send many emails to Gmail accounts but have had no issues having added the Plusnet SPF record to the Namesco email settings. 

[#9]

It seems that all the gmail accounts I am sending to receive my mails.  Thanks for all the help.

Yes, I agree with Townsman that this is a stupid situation.  It is ultimately Google's fault for imposing non-standard requirements.  PlusNet tried the same several years ago and had to retract since nearly all emails sent to PlusNet accounts vanished without trace.  Google just bullies everyone else into conforming so it is they who are passing the buck..

When I set up this around 20 years ago it was a sensible way to go.  Maybe I would not do the same now.

[#10]

To be honest I agree with the Gmail stance. In the early days there was little need for securing emails. These days with e-commerce, banking etc and the web infested with phishers, scammers, spammers etc. there is justification for forcing change.

It’s time that the international agreement was updated and ancient systems that don’t enforce basic protection either be updated or retired.

[#11]

---

@Baldrick1 wrote:

It’s time that the international agreement was updated and ancient systems that don’t enforce basic protection either be updated or retired.

---

Be VERY careful what you wish for!

[#12]

It's interesting that Google aren't applying the authentication requirement to their paid accounts! Seems that they don't wish to upset their paying customers by bouncing their email! They're hoping that they can cajole all email providers into adopting SPF/DKIM as a mandatory requirement from the 'noise' generated by their 'free' customers. Once they've achieved that, then they can safely apply the same rules to paid accounts!

[#13]

Or get users of other mail services to abandon those providers and flock to Gmail so that Google can mine the content of their correspondence.

[#14]

---

@MisterW wrote:

It's interesting that Google aren't applying the authentication requirement to their paid accounts! 

---

Maybe it’s my naivety. It occurred to me that the majority of their accounts are freebies and this was perhaps a move to reduce the heaven no how much suspicious junk landing on their servers.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a supporter of ‘free’ email accounts. It’s just the security thing that in my opinion, needs improving.

[#15]

If one reads the SPF rules, unless there IS a SPF record which mandates a HARD FAIL if the SPF record is not matched, a SPF failure SHOULD be delivered with a warming that the mail might be spam.

There is zero legitimacy in Gmail only part implementing non-mandatory protocols.  He who bangs the rule book, should first ensure that they themselves are fully compliant with the law!