Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 11:03:47 -0500
Reply-To: Eric Caron <ericcaron96@COMCAST.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Eric Caron <ericcaron96@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: Missing Posts
In-Reply-To: <20200102140358.5816394eb82f7546cb752e7f@5by9.net>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
<html><head></head><body dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi all below is another original post I didn’t get. I found it in Digest.</div><div class="">Hoping Jim A’s review this weekend finds useful info. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Post follows, and it is a interesting one, Looking forward to the 85 info!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Eric Caron </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 17:07:48 -0800<br class="">From: Jim Davis <<a href="mailto:SyncroHead@AOL.COM" class="">SyncroHead@AOL.COM</a>><br class="">Subject: Updates at <a href="http://www.vanagons.org/" class="">www.Vanagons.org</a><br class=""><br class="">Hi all!<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Please don't forget the S at the end of <a href="http://vanagons.org/" class="">VanagonS.org</a> if you type instead of<br class="">clicking.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">It's taken me a while, but the 1984 Vanagon materials are finally published,<br class="">at least a first draft. This leaves 1985 as the only year not yet covered in<br class="">the site's year-by-year, model-by-model pages.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">1984 had five models: Vanagon, Vanagon GL, Vanagon Camper, Vanagon Wolfsburg<br class="">Edition, and Camper Wolfsburg edition. 1984 included the first power<br class="">steering and metallic paint for Vanagons with the Wolfsburg models and was<br class="">also VW's highest sales year of the production run in the USA.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Accompanying these model write-ups are:<br class=""><br class="">- 1984 primary Vanagon brochure<br class=""><br class="">- 1984 "More Good Reasons" brochure which was mailed to existing owners<br class=""><br class="">- 1984 Wolfsburg Limited Editions brochure (first year for Vanagons)<br class=""><br class="">- Six original new car window stickers<br class=""><br class="">- a print ad: "The Porsche 911 of vans"<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Check it out at <a href="http://www.vanagons.org/" class="">http://www.Vanagons.org</a> <<a href="http://www.vanagons.org/" class="">http://www.vanagons.org/</a>><br class=""><br class="">Hope you enjoy it. :-)<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Have a Happy New Year!<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Jim Davis<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 2, 2020, at 4:03 PM, Michael A. Radtke <<a href="mailto:wa7zpu@5BY9.NET" class="">wa7zpu@5BY9.NET</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Eric, Ryan, and Ben,<br class=""><br class="">Thank you for your comments.<br class=""><br class="">I think that Ben summarized the situation quite well, but I am certain<br class="">that some email providers do reject incoming email because of missing MX<br class="">records. It is part of their spam test.<br class=""><br class="">Another thing is that the <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a> server logs will not show<br class="">messages discarded by list recipients providers, only mail bounced by<br class="">those providers. However, if just one list recipient bounces the<br class="">defective message, the fix may resolve the problem for all those<br class="">recipients who's provider discarded the message.<br class=""><br class="">I agree that the admin for the <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a> server has to own this<br class="">problem. But, we can help too. Perhaps some list members who end up<br class="">with messages in their spam folder can drill down and see why.<br class=""><br class="">Thanks,<br class="">Mike<br class=""><br class="">------------------------ Original Message ------------------------<br class="">Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:28:01 -0600<br class="">From: Ben Eisenbraun <<a href="mailto:bene@KLATSCH.ORG" class="">bene@KLATSCH.ORG</a>><br class="">To: <a href="mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM" class="">vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM</a><br class="">Subject: Re: Missing Posts<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The MX record is not a requirement for mail delivery. RFC compliant<br class="">mailers will fallback to the A record. Since the non-delivery issues<br class="">seem to be intermittent for most people, I don’t think the missing MX<br class="">record is really the root problem.<br class=""><br class="">The DNS configuration for <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a> is definitely not up to<br class="">modern standards (no SPF/DKIM as you note), but the server is also<br class="">running Listserv 1.8d, which came out in 1999, so it’s just one of many<br class="">things that are not up to modern standards.<br class=""><br class="">In any case, the only person who can really diagnose this problem is<br class="">the admin for the <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a> server. The mail server and mailing<br class="">list software should both be generating log files with success/failures<br class="">for all messages sent to the list, and you really need access to those<br class="">logs to figure out what’s going on. I think troubleshooting this from<br class="">only the client side is going to be almost impossible.<br class=""><br class="">-ben<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Jan 2, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Ryan Cresawn <<a href="mailto:jrcresawn@GMAIL.COM" class="">jrcresawn@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">The absence of an MX record is an excellent observation Mike. Furthermore,<br class="">no TXT record exists for <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a>. TXT records are used to store<br class="">SPF and DKIM records that are used by other email service providers to<br class="">determine the trustworthiness of <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a>. I am happy to help<br class="">improve the DNS records for <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">gerry.vanagon.com</a>.<br class=""><br class="">Ryan<br class=""><br class="">On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:49 AM Michael A. Radtke <<a href="mailto:wa7zpu@5by9.net" class="">wa7zpu@5by9.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Hello,<br class=""><br class="">No one commented on my earlier post, so maybe no one is getting my<br class="">posts as well.<br class=""><br class=""><a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">GERRY.VANAGON.COM</a> does not appear to have a DNS MX record. Since mail<br class="">is coming from <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">GERRY.VANAGON.COM</a> some email providers may simply delete<br class="">messages without valid MX records.<br class=""><br class="">Or put another way, mail from <a href="http://gerry.vanagon.com/" class="">GERRY.VANAGON.COM</a> has a trust level of<br class="">0.1 on a scale of 0-10 according to <a href="https://tools.verifyemailaddress.io/" class="">https://tools.verifyemailaddress.io</a>.<br class=""><br class="">Mike<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html> | 
