Can't believe I missed that! Quotation marks may only be used for the local-part of the address, not for the entire address.
Since years we've got a security IP cam which is generating photographs from our office entrance area during lock times i.e. at weekend. But since a few days MercuryC is not longer able to forward them to the internet. MercuryS is receiving those mails from the cam without any errors and is handing-over them to MercuryC. But when MercuryC is trying to deliver them to our ISP Mailserver, "error 554 - transaction failed" is shown.
The MercuryC log is showing the following reply (extract):
16:32:55.513: << From: Mail Delivery System <postmaster@johndoe.com><cr><lf>
16:32:55.513: << To: ipcam1@johndoe.com<cr><lf>
16:32:55.513: << Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 16:32:29 +0200<cr><lf>
16:32:55.529: << Subject: Delivery failure notification<cr><lf>
16:32:55.529: << MIME-Version: 1.0<cr><lf>
16:32:55.529: << Content-Type: Multipart/Report; boundary=Part_Boundary-575F96B8<cr><lf>
16:32:55.544: << Message-ID: <575FC25C.5E8C8F08.0004@johndoe.com><cr><lf>
16:32:55.544: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.544: << --Part_Boundary-575F96B8<cr><lf>
16:32:55.544: << Content-type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII<cr><lf>
16:32:55.560: << Content-description: Mail delivery failure report<cr><lf>
16:32:55.560: << Content-disposition: Inline<cr><lf>
16:32:55.560: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.560: << With reference to your message with the subject:<cr><lf>
16:32:55.575: << "Mail Test"<cr><lf>
16:32:55.575: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.575: << The local mail transport system has reported the following problems<cr><lf>
16:32:55.575: << it encountered while trying to deliver your message:<cr><lf>
16:32:55.591: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.591: << -------------------------------------------------------------------<cr><lf>
16:32:55.591: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.607: << --- Problems not related to specific addresses in the message:<cr><lf>
16:32:55.607: << 554-Transaction failed<cr><lf>
16:32:55.607: << *** verteiler_ipcam@johndoe.com<cr><lf>
16:32:55.607: << -------------------------------------------------------------------<cr><lf>
16:32:55.622: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.622: << Your mail message is being returned to you in the next part of this<cr><lf>
16:32:55.622: << message.<cr><lf>
16:32:55.622: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.638: << Should you need assistance, please mail postmaster@johndoe.com.<cr><lf>
16:32:55.638: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.638: << --Part_Boundary-575F96B8<cr><lf>
16:32:55.654: << Content-type: Message/RFC822<cr><lf>
16:32:55.654: << Content-description: Contents of original mail message<cr><lf>
16:32:55.654: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.654: << Received: from spooler by johndoe.com (Mercury/32 v4.81.187); 7 Apr 2020 16:31:56 +0200<cr><lf>
16:32:55.669: << Received: from anonymous (192.168.21.112) by johndoe.com (Mercury/32 v4.81.181) with ESMTP ID MG0001BC;<cr><lf>
16:32:55.669: << 7 Apr 2020 16:31:52 +0200<cr><lf>
16:32:55.669: << From: "johndoe IP Cam" <ipcam1@johndoe.com><cr><lf>
16:32:55.669: << To: "verteiler_ipcam@johndoe.com"<cr><lf>
16:32:55.685: << Subject:Mail Test<cr><lf>
16:32:55.685: << Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:31:52 <cr><lf>
16:32:55.685: << Mime-Version: 1.0<cr><lf>
16:32:55.700: << Content-Type: multipart/mixed;<cr><lf>
16:32:55.700: << boundary="=====================_25850421==_"<cr><lf>
16:32:55.700: << Comment: Message-ID missing from received message, added by johndoe.com.<cr><lf>
16:32:55.700: << Message-ID: <575F0640.5E8CAAF8.03EF@johndoe.com><cr><lf>
16:32:55.716: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.716: << --=====================_25850421==_<cr><lf>
16:32:55.716: << Content-Type: text/html; format=flowed<cr><lf>
16:32:55.732: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.732: << <HTML><cr><lf>
16:32:55.732: << <HEAD><cr><lf>
16:32:55.732: << <TITLE>Device Warning</TITLE><cr><lf>
16:32:55.747: << <META NAME='Author' CONTENT='ChenXiaohui'><cr><lf>
16:32:55.747: << <style><cr><lf>
16:32:55.747: << font { font-size: 12pt;}<cr><lf>
16:32:55.763: << </style><cr><lf>
16:32:55.763: << </HEAD><cr><lf>
16:32:55.763: << <BODY><cr><lf>
16:32:55.763: << Mail Test<br><cr><lf>
16:32:55.779: << <hr><cr><lf>
16:32:55.779: << <font style="size:12pt; color:silver;">Automatically sent by johndoe IP Cam.</font><cr><lf>
16:32:55.779: << </BODY><cr><lf>
16:32:55.794: << </HTML><cr><lf>
16:32:55.794: << --=====================_25850421==_--<cr><lf>
16:32:55.794: << --=====================_25850421==_--<cr><lf>
16:32:55.794: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.810: << --Part_Boundary-575F96B8--<cr><lf>
16:32:55.810: << <cr><lf>
16:32:55.810: << .<cr><lf>
16:32:55.872: >> 250 Requested mail action okay, completed: id=1Myb8P-1j5XNi1c1F-00yzvE<cr><lf>
16:32:55.888: << QUIT<cr><lf>
16:32:55.919: >> 221 kundenserver.de Service closing transmission channel<cr><lf>
16:32:55.935: [*] OpenSSL secure session normally terminated.
16:32:55.935: --- Connection closed at 7 Apr 2020, 16:32:55.935. ---
16:32:55.935:
Has anybody a hint why this mail is not being processed by ISP?
Nothing that stands out as obviously broken or spammy as far as I can see. Maybe something that the ISP helpdesk could look into?
When changing the recipient address to my local address, so that Mercury doesn't need to forward it to the Internet but to my local Pmail account, I'm able to view the mail. As follows the original test mail from the cam (where only our domain has been replaced by "johndoe" again):
Received: from spooler by johndoe.com (Mercury/32 v4.81.187); 8 Apr 2020 08:29:32 +0200
X-Envelope-To: <j.mueller@johndoe.com>
Return-path: <ipcam1@johndoe.com>
Received: from anonymous (192.168.21.112) by johndoe.com (Mercury/32 v4.81.181) with ESMTP ID MG000286;
8 Apr 2020 08:29:22 +0200
From: "johndoe IP Cam" <ipcam1@johndoe.com>
To: "j.mueller@johndoe.com"
Subject:Mail Test
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 08:29:21
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="=====================_25850421==_"
Comment: Message-ID missing from received message, added by johndoe.com.
Message-ID: <5ACBA5C7.5E8D8B62.03F4@johndoe.com>
X-PMFLAGS: 570949760 0 1 YWEBR605.CNM
--=====================_25850421==_
Content-Type: text/html; format=flowed
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Device Warning</TITLE>
<META NAME='Author' CONTENT='ChenXiaohui'>
<style>
font { font-size: 12pt;}
</style>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Mail Test<br>
<hr>
<font style="size:12pt; color:silver;">Automatically sent by johndoe IP Cam.</font>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--=====================_25850421==_--
Now I got an aswer from our ISP / Mail Provider. Since 1st of April all incoming mails have to strictly follow RFC 5321 and 5322. Otherwise they will be rejected.
I'm not soo deeply dipped into the RFC standards. Could anybody find something in the a.m. IP Cam mail which is not in accordance with these RFCs? In that case we have to purchase a newer model since firmware updates are not longer available.
At first glance it looks OK, but maybe the Date: header is missing a time zone (+/- offset from UTC).
Also check that the from address (ipcam1@...) can receive messages - an alias would do.
The second issue has caught me out a few times, but the first is more of a problem if you want the camera to send out directly.
Thanks Paul,
Don't know whether the time zone is really required to be added to Date: headers.
Further, at the Subject: header, an empty space is missing directly behind the colon. Don't know whether this is required as well.
Just tried to study different RFCs, but didn't find new discoveries for me.
The ipcam@... address will be forwarded to another real address, if a mailserver returns an error message from the internet.
edit: Maybe the ISP mail parser don't like the comment from our Mercury server that a Message ID is missing. It seems the IP Cam doesn't add a Message ID, but Mercury is adding one subsequently.
[quote user="Joerg"]
Don't know whether the time zone is really required to be added to Date: headers.
[/quote]
My reading is that the zone is not optional, although I know that many misformed dates have been allowed in the past.
Assuming these messages are being sent from the camera to a fixed address, could you send these messages instead to a local user, who then automatically forwards them to the ultimate recipient? The forwarding should ensure they are valid for your SMTP host.
[quote user="PaulW"]Assuming these messages are being sent from the camera to a fixed address, could you send these messages instead to a local user, who then automatically forwards them to the ultimate recipient? The forwarding should ensure they are valid for your SMTP host.[/quote]
That I could give a try. Sending to a local user still works. Maybe I could adjust a Mercury filter which is forwarding the mail to an external mail address.
BTW, today we've encountered further "Error 554 Transaction failed" replies, when my users are sending mails. One "misstyping" at the "To:" header which is not longer accepted is the follwing:
To: johndoe@domain.com <johndoe@domain.com>
Means, if the name in front of the e-mail address is not covered by semicolons AND is containing a special sign like "@" the mail will be rejected. Until now we encountered only problems when sending e.g.
To: doe, john <johndoe@domain.com>
where the comma is normally to be understood as a separator between different e-mail addresses. With this knowledge I've checked the camera mail again and found at the "To:" header:
To: "j.mueller@johndoe.com"
But, when enclosed in semikolons, it is a name only and the ISP is missing a real e-mail address behind the name. This could be the reason. Unfortunately I could not change the camera processing. If I additionally add < > the result is: "<j.mueller@johndoe.com>", which is also not accepted.
BTW: When using johndoe@domain.com <johndoe@domain.com> in Thunderbird (without semicolons for the name), it is reformatting and sending the mail in correct way so that the ISP is accepting it. I wouold wish that future Pmail versions should check and correct wrong user entries. This would increase the acceptance of Pmail with many users which don't care about RFCs or have no ideas of internet rules.
