Yesterday afternoon one of our List Owners reported receiving bounces for all hotmail.com e-mail addresses with a 550 error and explanation that the mail was considered SPAM. Unfortunately, he deleted the error (and all his hotmail.com subscribers), so I didn't see it. He also reported the following: ------ as a side note, on another list i'm on, someone who was a hotmail user contacted them and apparently they're having some problems with mail that has a different time/date on it than the sending time -- which to me suggests that all mail should have problems, but what do i know. Ae. ------ It would be great if you could post the response you get from them, Marty. Thanks. --Trish On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Marty Hoag wrote: > The last couple days we've been seeing wholesale HOTMAIL error > e-mail bounces with a 5.0.0 code (should be syntax error if I read > the docs right). This is a bit different than the previous 554 error > in that it occurs AFTER the e-mail has been accepted by HOTMAIL. > Below is an example. > > The ironic thing is that one listowner is a hotmail user herself > and got the error message back ok (via owner-listname) but the mail > to the hotmail subscribers was rejected! She claimed she'd tried > a couple times and got bounces but I'm not sure of the sequence. > > I was told before (9/27/02) by Hotmail escalation that the > 554 was their problem (I think they were running out of threads > or something on their servers). But again, this seems a bit > different in that the rejection is coming after the e-mail has > been accepted from LISTSERV(tm). > > What I am concerned about is that HOTMAIL has set some sort > of arbitrary limit within their system that is not enforced > coming in (e.g. number of RCPT TOs). That seems dumb because > if we lowered the max number of RCPT TOs it would just mean more > e-mail they'd have to handle. > > I'm about to try calling them again on this but wondered if > any of you had noticed this trend in the last few days and had > an answer. But maybe this is their error of the week. After > the spate of 554s I seem to recall they changed to something else > for a while. > > Thanks. Marty > > ... > >From: [log in to unmask] > >To: [log in to unmask] > ... > >--9B095B5ADSN=_01C2717286D0D7720036C1A9mc4?s8.law16.hot > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7 > > > >This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. > > > >Delivery to the following recipients failed. > > > > [log in to unmask] > > [log in to unmask] > ... about 20 more... > > > > > > > >--9B095B5ADSN=_01C2717286D0D7720036C1A9mc4?s8.law16.hot > >Content-Type: message/delivery-status > > > >Reporting-MTA: dns;mc4-s8.law16.hotmail.com > >Received-From-MTA: dns;mc4-f39.law16.hotmail.com > >Arrival-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:13:07 -0700 > > > >Original-Recipient: > >Final-Recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask] > >Action: failed > >Status: 5.0.0 > > > >Original-Recipient: > >Final-Recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask] > >Action: failed > >Status: 5.0.0 > > > ... about 20 more... > ... >