Mail bouncing to gmail

[#1]

---

@Townman wrote:
That’s confusing then - the title of your topic states “bouncing” implying rejection as spam which matches what has been seen and reported before.

Raising the spam risk score is legitimate, but rejection on the associated SPF soft fail is not.

---

Nothing confusing about it.  It is bounced with the error about security, but it's clear it's really bouncing it for spam, since it depends on the content too.

You can try for yourself, try sending emails to a gmail address, then do a few VERY SLIGHTLY spam like things, like add links, send to three people at once, etc.

[#2]

What do you mean by the phrase "bouncing"?

In this context it is generally used to indicate that the receiving email service refused to deliver a mail item (thing returned to sender) for whatever set of reasons - well defined or otherwise.  Such matches the title of your topic.  You now seem to suggest that the mail IS delivered to the Gmail addressee, but it is flagged as potentially being spam.

Gmail using SPF soft fail as the grounds for not delivering email is not compliant with the RFC specification, whereas it delivering it flagged as potential spam is quite correct.

We are not / cannot progress this matter here - if this is in the nature under discussion, in the absence of Plusnet declaring a SPF rule for every individual customer (a mammoth task) and Gmail implementing the rules incorrectly, users will see a persistence of issues when sending to Gmail accounts from @*.plus.com 

[#3]

---

@sunnyrio wrote:

---

@Baldrick1 wrote:

So that suggests to me that it could depend on how close to the spam trigger threshold the basic email is without the links etc.

---

Just normal links to a web site we were discussing, nothing even remotely dodgy, so Gmail is taking the lack of security plus a link to mean spam.  Ridiculous.  I shall avoid Gmail at all costs.

---

I can see a counter argument along the lines that assuming that the same content can be sent from Gmail accounts without triggering the spam filter then that’s an argument in favour of Gmail?

[#4]

HI, 

You said that "If you have a domain name hosted by Plusnet, you can get a SPF record inserted for that domain name."

How do I go about doing that?  I can't see an obvious way  of doing it in the domain management for my account.

Thanks in advance.    

[#5]

I think it is something you  have to request on here - little point in calling up, as many of the first line support wouldn't have a clue about it.

[#6]

@staffie2001uk 

On the basis that your account ALREADY has a hosted domain, go to Manage Account -> Manage Your Domains -> Configure domain name ... and create an "Additional DNS records (Advanced)" as follows...

[#7]

Thank you @Townman, I have done that and hopefully it will solve my issue.  

[#8]

Thanks again @Townman, they have added my SPF record.  

Is there a similar process to add a DKIM record?  
Kind Regards,

[#9]

No!

[#10]

---

@Townman wrote:

What do you mean by the phrase "bouncing"?

In this context it is generally used to indicate that the receiving email service refused to deliver a mail item (thing returned to sender) for whatever set of reasons - well defined or otherwise.  Such matches the title of your topic.  You now seem to suggest that the mail IS delivered to the Gmail addressee, but it is flagged as potentially being spam.

Gmail using SPF soft fail as the grounds for not delivering email is not compliant with the RFC specification, whereas it delivering it flagged as potential spam is quite correct.

We are not / cannot progress this matter here - if this is in the nature under discussion, in the absence of Plusnet declaring a SPF rule for every individual customer (a mammoth task) and Gmail implementing the rules incorrectly, users will see a persistence of issues when sending to Gmail accounts from @*.plus.com 

---

I'm not suggesting it was delivered.  I'll state it again.... If the message fails the check, the spam score is increased.  If you also do something else like include a link, a lot of quoted, text, or send it to multiple people, then it's bounced.

Even flagging it as potential spam is wrong on Gmail's part, since they're insisting on a security measure which isn't a standard.

I assume you meant "or" in your last paragraph.  Presumably the rules do not require Plusnet to set an SPF rule individually?!  So all we need is for Gmail to do things right.

[#11]

We do need Gmail to do things right. Adding a spam quotient on a soft fail is pragmatic and within the tenants of the SPF RFC. Rejecting it outright right (as has happened before) SOLEY based on a soft fail is not permitted.

If other factors in the content of the email then tips the scales … then the scales are tipped. Suggesting an argument that the threshold should not be tipped leads to an expectation of a moveable threshold to suit individual perspectives.

[#12]

Thanks !

[#13]

@staffie2001uk

From recent conversations elsewhere, it has become apparent that DKIM is implemented for *.plus.com but (as above) not for hosted domains.

[#14]

---

@Townman wrote:
We do need Gmail to do things right. Adding a spam quotient on a soft fail is pragmatic and within the tenants of the SPF RFC. Rejecting it outright right (as has happened before) SOLEY based on a soft fail is not permitted.

If other factors in the content of the email then tips the scales … then the scales are tipped. Suggesting an argument that the threshold should not be tipped leads to an expectation of a moveable threshold to suit individual perspectives.

---

A conversation between me and three friends, two of them on gmail, resulted in 70% of them getting bounced.  That is not ok.  I do not get bounces from any other email provider.  Gmail is badly broken.

[#15]

@MisterW Thank you for this information. I have my domain hosted by Plusnet, and I'm increasingly getting messages to Gmail accounts bounced for exactly these reasons; even trivial messages like "hello".

You suggest in cases like mine that one gets an SPF record added. Could you explain how that's done, or what I need to do.

Thanks very much.