Gmail issues again

[#1]

Last year I had issues with gmail recipients receiving warnings and after consulting on here added the following SPF record to my domain record (I have my own domain but send out of plusnet SMTP)

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

That fixed the issue and the gmail emails went through as expected wth no issues or warnings.

This last week I have sent emails to regular contacts (it is a group list) who have gmail without issues, yet yesterday, I emailed them all again and one of those returned a failure message (below). I also emailed a new gmail contact added to the list.and got the same error below. No errors from the other gmail accounts.

host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[74.125.133.26]
    said: 550-5.7.26 This message does not pass authentication checks (SPF and
    DKIM both 550-5.7.26 do not pass). SPF check for [MYDOMAIN] does
    not pass with 550-5.7.26 ip: [178.32.123.217].To best protect our users
    from spam, the 550-5.7.26 message has been blocked. Please visit 550-5.7.26
    https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126#authentication for more 550
    5.7.26 information. d3-20020adff2c3000000b002c55983fdc9si10799669wrp.349 -
    gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)

 I've looked at the "Mail bouncing to gmail - fixed" post  but can't see anything on those pages which suggests how to fix this as I already have the SPF record as above.

Can anybody shed light on this please.

One thought it mentions 178.32.123.217 - do I need to add  "ip4:178.32.12.217" to the SPF although I would have thought that would be in the plusnet DNS names?

[#2]

Dunno what that 178. address is, @lyndonp , but it is nothing to do with PN - it is a French one, belonging to OVH SAS, according to a quick IP location/owner search.

[#3]

that IP is not a plusnet mail server its 3.mo555.mail-out.ovh.net

[#4]

Thought it might be a mail server address, @MisterW , but didn't delve beyond the location/owner level.

[#5]

Yes I was grasping at straws! What I noticed about these two email address is that they were to non-gmail domains and must be forwarded to gmail. (The other rejection email has 17.58.6.45 in it.)

Interesting statement in the google rejection email which I have highlighted:-

"Important: Starting November 2022, new senders who send email to personal Gmail accounts must set up either SPF or DKIM. Google performs random checks on new sender messages to personal Gmail accounts to verify they’re authenticated. Messages without at least one of these authentication methods will be rejected or marked as spam. This requirement doesn’t apply to you if you’re an existing sender. However, we recommend you always set up SPF and DKIM to protect your organization’s email and to support future authentication requirements."

That would imply the account I had not emailed before could be rejected if SPF was not set up, but wouldn't explain the one I have been emailing for many moons. It still doesn't help me though.

Can somebody clarify my SPF record is correct please? Thanks

[#6]

What I noticed about these two email address is that they were to non-gmail domains and must be forwarded to gmail. (The other rejection email has 17.58.6.45 in it.)

in that case its a problem with their email forwarding. Its not using SRS ( sender rewrite system) which means the mail appears to still be being sent by you but from the mail forwarding server. There's nothing YOU can do about it. Your spf is correct,  its the fault of the email forwarding of whoever you're sending to.

[#7]

I sent test emails to those two accounts tonight and didn’t get a bounce back and the one I have previously emailed replied back.

I can only conclude google mail was throwing a wobbly yesterday.

(Interestingly the other IP address 17.58.6.45 appears to be something to do with Apple iCloud!)

[#8]

This is a really good illustration of misdirection in describing an issue.

You inferred that you you were sending to a Gmail address when describing the experience of a Gmail user. Where an addressee fred@somewhere.com chooses to have that email address redirected to their Gmail account, the YOU are not sending to Gmail in the manner of the other similarly titled topics.

Their redirecting host is sending to Gmail - not Plusnet. There are a number of such hosting organisations who have not implemented SRS (as described above) with consequential mayhem. You might want to suggest that your correspondent uses their email address on a decent hosting platform m, dropping both their existing one and Gmail. Both of these are likely to bite them / you in the neck again.

[#9]

@Townman it was not a misdirection in describing an issue. I provided all the information I had at the time on the initial post. If there was any misdirection it was in the rejection email (which I included on the post) from Google which specified the addresses rejected as being gmail addresses and the link they had provided pointed me to SPF issues, although I knew I had altered mine last year in accordance with posts on here.

The two emails rejected as I stated were part of a group email list of which there are 100+ email names - I do not see the actual email addresses, only actual people's names, so was not aware at the time they were not actually gmail addresses as google had stated, or anything remotely different with them to others on the list.

It was only through the helpful @MisterW and @jab1 which gave me a pointer and I then looked at the addresses. However, as I later posted when I sent test emails they were working so who knows where the problem was occurring as nothing had changed.

You might want to take up with Apple that their hosting platform is not "decent" as you put it! (I did state in my final post before yours that one of the IP addresses referred to Apple!)

Being as Apple was one of the addresses I would guess they have SRS and that the issue I encountered with these two addresses was some sort of Google gmail blip at the time.

FYI, Part of the process in resolving issues such as mine is to post the facts on here and await helpful replies - hardly misdirecting. If anything is unclear posters can ask for clarification, neither did but provided some comments. You were not part of the discussion before it was resolved so I really do not understand why you need to post as you did after the event - incorrectly as it was too.

[#10]

Sorry you feel that way. We see a few cases of “it’s this or that happening” and only after considerable digging does it become clear that the issue is not as described.

The post was not to your issue specifically, it is as much as anything for OTHERS to consider when describing issues, using your experience as an illustration in point. Remember we are all volunteer customers and partial descriptions of situations can consume a good deal of time.