 |
 |
I do not think it is not about space. I have now resubscribed having been kicked off CODE4LIB as per others have reported, and I have got a few spare gigabytes on my Google mail account. The removal message quotes 3 delivery errors from my mail system. Like others my mail system is Google mail. Looking at the delivery error quoted it is a message from the Google mail system to the sender of the mail (the COE4LIB Listserv): [2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe55:a961] Our system has detected that this 550-5.7.1 message does not meet IPv6 sending guidelines regarding PTR records 550-5.7.1 and authentication. Please review 550-5.7.1 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=IPv6AuthError for more information 550 5.7.1 . q67… (23 bytes suppressed) Is anyone noting these errors or taking note of the message to understand why ListServ messages do not meet IPv6 sending guidelines.( instead of just arbitrarily kicking folks off the list) These being: - The sending IP must have a PTR record (i.e., a reverse DNS of the sending IP) and it should match the IP obtained via the forward DNS resolution of the hostname specified in the PTR record. Otherwise, mail will be marked as spam or possibly rejected. - The sending domain should pass either SPF check or DKIM check. Otherwise, mail might be marked as spam., before I got kicked off ~Richard. Richard Wallis Founder, Data Liberate http://dataliberate.com Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis Twitter: @rjw On 14 September 2016 at 17:32, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > To be clear, this is about the account, not the list. Your colleague > either needs to do some housekeeping or purchase more space from the > friendly folks at Google. > > > On Sep 14, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Cowan, William G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Running out of space? See https://support.google.com/ > mail/answer/6374270?hl=en > > > > > > Will > > > > > > On 9/14/16, 09:03 , "Code for Libraries on behalf of Josh Wilson" < > [log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > My colleague was unexpectedly booted from the Code4Lib list and > received > > the message below. She uses a work Gmail account so it doesn't seem > > especially likely to be misconfigured. I didn't realize there were any > > additional requirements for the new listserv, I wonder if this is > affecting > > others. > > > > Any thoughts on how to fix this? > > > > > > * * * > > > > You have been automatically removed from the CODE4LIB list (Code > for > > Libraries) as a result of repeated delivery error reports from your > mail > > system. This decision was based on the list's automatic error > monitoring > > policy and has not been reviewed or otherwise confirmed by a > person. If > > you receive this message, then it means that something is wrong. > While > > you are obviously able to receive mail, your mail system has > been > > regularly reporting that your account did not exist, or that you > were > > otherwise permanently unable to receive mail. Here is some > information > > that may assist you or your local help desk in determining the > cause of > > the problem: > > > > - The failing address is [redacted] > > > > - The first error was reported on 2016-09-08. > > > > - Since then, a total of 3 delivery errors have been received. > > > > - The last reported error was: 5.7.1 550-5.7.1 > > [2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe55:a961] Our system has detected that > this > > 550-5.7.1 message does not meet IPv6 sending guidelines regarding > PTR > > records 550-5.7.1 and authentication. Please review > 550-5.7.1 > > https://support.google.com/mail/?p=IPv6AuthError for more > information 550 > > 5.7.1 . s67... (24 bytes suppressed) > > > > Please do not ignore this message. While you can re-subscribe to > the > > list, it is important for you to report this problem to your > mail > > administrator so that it can be solved. This problem is not > specific to > > the CODE4LIB list and may also affect your private mail. This means > that > > you may have lost some private mail as well. Anyone trying to > write to > > you during the same time frame might have received the same errors > for > > the same reason. > > > > > > >