Message delivery fails to all recepients

Discussion regarding the Standard version.
Post Reply
Jinglebens
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:56 am

Message delivery fails to all recepients

Post by Jinglebens »

When message is sent to multiple recepients it is not delivered or bounced back if one recepient has non existing email.

Here is what trace utility returns:

Trace: Tracing message with Message ID [DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI] from the SMTP Inbound Queue

Result: [DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI] was not routed from the SMTP inbound message queue by the local MTA Service. This most likely means that the message was not completely recieved by the connector.
Important: Message ID [DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI] does not seem to have been routed through MailEnable queues (an error most likely occured when receiving this message).

Status: SMTP Inbound transaction details for Message ID [DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI] follow below:
11/05/07 09:45:43 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 220 xxx.xxx ESMTP MailEnable Service, Version: 1.983-- ready at 11/05/07 09:45:43 0 0
11/05/07 09:45:43 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 EHLO EHLO TECH04 250-mail.xxx.xx [192.168.1.75], this server offers 4 extensions 132 13
11/05/07 09:45:49 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 MAIL MAIL FROM: <1@xxx.xxx> 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 43 40
11/05/07 09:45:49 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 RCPT RCPT TO: <2@xxx.xxx> 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 43 31
11/05/07 09:45:49 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 RCPT RCPT TO: <3@xxx.xxx> 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 43 28
11/05/07 09:45:49 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 RCPT RCPT TO: <4@xxx.xxx> 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 43 35
11/05/07 09:45:49 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 RCPT RCPT TO: <5@xxx.xxx> 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable or not local 66 28
11/05/07 09:45:49 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 RSET RSET 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 43 7
11/05/07 09:45:51 SMTP-IN DF0C05F1F2DE44EE98580F6C224C1DBE.MAI 480 192.168.1.75 QUIT QUIT 221 Service closing transmission channel 42 7

In this example recepients 1@xxx.xxx, 2@xxx.xxx, 3@xxx.xxx, 4@xxx.xxx do not receive anything. Sender does not receive anything.

No related references found in MTA logs.

If I send the same test using Gmail, it works: there is a bounced back mail and all others are delivered.

As I see, there is RSET command used which likely drops the message. Does anybody knows why RSET is used? What are the consequences if I will simply uncheck RSET checkmark in Advanced SMTP properties dialog?

Please, help

cszeto
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by cszeto »

Microsoft MVP (2004 through 2008)

Jinglebens
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:56 am

Post by Jinglebens »

cszeto, thanks for replying. But I think these links do not contain info relevant to my question. Actually I could narrow the problem:

- mail sent from local to local but non existing mail box never bounces back. It just disapears, so if there are other recepients, they won't get the message too.

However if mail is sent to non existing mailbox from wherever else (yahoo, gmail, etc.) message is bounced back.

Anything I can tweak in settings?

cszeto
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by cszeto »

The point of the first quoted thread is that your post there indicated that you are running Helm.

Helm like Plesk, the second quoted thread, has added additional functionality as well as changed some it via their packaging of multiple applications. That's how they are able to integrate multiple "free" applications and then charge for it.

As such, your best bet is to contact the Helm folks for support, since they were paid for their "value add" integration. MailEnable has no control, input, insights or financial benefits from the acts of Helm.
Microsoft MVP (2004 through 2008)

Jinglebens
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:56 am

Post by Jinglebens »

I see. No, I am not running Helm. I said only that I have upgraded from 1.71 to 1.983 but on w2k server with nothing else installed. Sorry for confusion.

I think my issue is pure MailEnable issue: I send a message and it is not bounced back if destinated to non existing recipient. Do you know why? This already existed on 1.71.

cszeto
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by cszeto »

"SMTP Properties" - "Security" - "Connection Dropping"
Microsoft MVP (2004 through 2008)

Jinglebens
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:56 am

Post by Jinglebens »

Thanks cszeto. I am a bit frustrated though: at "SMTP Properties" - "Security" - "Connection Dropping" I see only two settings I can change:

- Drop a connection when the failed number of commands or recipients reaches: 15 (is set, default value, have not touched)

- Add to denied IP addresses if this number is reached

Are you reffering to ME standard edition? May be you are geeting me wrong? My case is:

I send an email from my existing account (myaccount@domain.com) to a non existing account (imagine I have just made a typo, nonexisting@domain.com) and of course message not delivered and not bounced back. This is concerning. How I supposed to know if I used a wrong mailbox?

cszeto
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by cszeto »

"Who" or "what" is actually connecting to ME for the log capture that you initially provided? Is that another ME server, another email server or is that an email client (like OE)?

Upon closer examination of your logs and the fact that you have what appears to be the correct settings on your ME, it looks like it is the remote side that may be dropping the SMTP session.
Microsoft MVP (2004 through 2008)

Brett Rowbotham
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Cape Town

Post by Brett Rowbotham »

Looks like cszeto has the wrong end of the stick here.

MailEnable, when sending an email to multiple recipients, will not deliver that email to any of the recipients in the list if one or more of the recipient email addresses does not exist.

This is a problem for mailing lists where people will sign up for a newsletter (for example) and, when the newsletter is sent out and grouped according to domain, if that email address is no longer valid then nobody in that domain will receive the newsletter. Seen this happen umpteen times.

My reading of the RFC suggests that the email should fail only if all recipients are bad. Otherwise the email should continue to be delivered and it is up to the receiving server to carry out delivery correctly. Obviously a NDR would need to be generated for the failing email address(es).

Hope that explains the problem better.

Cheers,
Brett

cszeto
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by cszeto »

If what Brett Rowbotham states is correct on the existing delivery function, then ME is not respecting the setting and not following the RFCs.

http://forum.mailenable.com/viewtopic.php?t=11712
Microsoft MVP (2004 through 2008)

MailEnable
Site Admin
Posts: 4441
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:03 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria Australia

Post by MailEnable »

The RSET command in the supplied log is the reason that the message transaction is aborted.

The client mailer is receiving the 5XX error (perm error when addressing to that specific recipient) and "decides" to issue a RSET command. What is significant here is that the client is actually using RSET to tell MailEnable that it wants to abort sending the message.

From the RFC:
RESET (RSET)
This command specifies that the current mail transaction is to be aborted. Any stored sender, recipients, and mail data must be discarded, and all buffers and state tables cleared. The receiver must send an OK reply.
More: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html


As such (at least in the intial case posted by Jinglebens) MailEnable is doing exactly what the client is telling it to do - aborting the entire message transaction at the request of the client/initiating mailer.
Regards, Andrew

cszeto
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:06 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Post by cszeto »

Back to... ""Who" or "what" is actually connecting to ME for the log capture that you initially provided?"
Microsoft MVP (2004 through 2008)

Post Reply