Q: Windows Live Hotmail uses a cache of SPF records instead of
performing live look-ups in the DNS. Why is this, and how can I include
my SPF record in the cache?
A: Windows Live Hotmail utilizes a cache to help handle an excess of 4.5
billion daily e-mails. Although this is not a typical implementation, it
provides a redundancy and reduces the risk of DNS timeouts. To help
insure your record is in the cache, send your domain name(s) in a text
file to [EMAIL PROTECTED], *24 hours prior to your email campaign*.
The cache is updated several times per day allowing us to automatically
download your most current SPF record.
Neil Sequeira wrote:
Hey all,
I finally have mail from my server showing up in Hotmail mailboxes.
At first it seemed to Magically start working after numerous
conversations with Microsoft, but then I received a message from ms
support saying they had implemented a temporary workaround.
Here's an overview of the steps... Seems you just have to keep
badgering them and someone will eventually get back to you.
1. Open a support ticket with Microsoft
2. Receive a generic reply with steps to take
3. Review steps to ensure e-mail complies with their rules
4. Signed up for their SNDS service
- no stats ever showed up (it seems to just ignore mail from my
server after returning the 250)
5. Implement SPF on my domain
- i'm not a proponent of SPF, but this does seem to be how Microsoft
forces the voluntary adoption of their technologies.
6. Wait for your ttl to expire, then send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body containing
the domain(s) you're implemented SPF for.
- first email from KMail bounced back as spam, second e-mail from
webmail also bounced as spam, finally manually connecting to their
SMTP server and typing the message was accepted.
7. Still no e-mail into Hotmail. Open another support ticket
- this time they came back with a link to dnsreport.com saying there
was an error in my domain and mx configuration. Sniffing the SMTP
conversation showed their test isn't RFC compliant (empty envelope
sender to multiple recipients) and they don't check return codes.
8. E-Mail back to Microsoft indicating the results of reviewing the
tests.
- first message bounced as Spam
- second message (through another relay) bounced as Spam
- finally logged into my hotmail account and sent reply from there.
9. Received reply from Microsoft support saying call has been
escalated to their filtering team.
10. Tested Sunday night and mail showed up in Hotmail account.
11. Received an e-mail Monday afternoon saying they had implemented a
temporary workaround.
Lots of hoops and new acronyms but at the end of the day mail goes
into Hotmail accounts now. For some reason the acronyms I signed up
for (snds specifically) had absolutely no data for the server that
was sending the e-mails.
They also use something called SmartScreen for Spam filtering and
it's not particularly smart, which makes conversations with their
support group all the more challenging.
Anyways, not sure if those steps will work for others but it should be
a place to start. They did say it was a temporary workaround so it's
entirely possible i'll be full circle in a couple of weeks...
Here's a quote from RFC2821 for others having this problem. As
someone pointed out this won't make mail flow to Hotmail, but it
should make you feel a little better that the problem (bug! ;>) is on
Hotmail's side and has nothing to do with qmail-ldap.
---quote---
When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK"
message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for
delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility
seriously. It MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, such
as because the host later crashes or because of a predictable
resource shortage.
---endquote---
That also shows that Hotmail is basically violating the RFC by
returning a 250 in response to DATA then dropping the e-mail.
Frustrating as hell and definitely (as someone else pointed out) the
best bet is to try and get people to migrate to gmail (which has no
such problems), but if that's not practical we don't seem to have
much of a choice but to jump through the hoops.
Regards,
-neil
