By the way the error from the system log is the log of the SMTP server.
"skyline" wrote:
> The current workaround/resolution is to move this custom made application
> over to the original application server and it works like a charm. No
> changes to the application were made
>
> Both systems are Windows 2000 with matching network properties and as far as
> I can tell they are configured the same.
>
> The custom application is using .NET's email function. From what I can tell
> it is a rather simple app designed just to send emails. The destination mail
> servers are of all types, however the domains reporting problems are not
> Yahoo! users (they receive fine) but more specific smaller hosting companies
> such as lightbound.com are getting denied. Here is one of the errors from
> the system log:
>
> Message delivery to the host '206.246.140.84' failed while delivering to the
> remote domain 'lightbound.com' for the following reason: The connection was
> dropped by the remote host.
>
> Is it possible to filter by an internal IP in an email header (or a server
> name)? In the end of the initial hand off in the header you can plainly see
> our mail servers DNS name as the sender. The only difference is the HELO
> command to our internal server which I can't imagine is a problem. The IP is
> granted relay access just as the other one, and no errors are returned when
> sending.
>
> I find it super odd that the messages make it to the SMTP server and out to
> the destination but are dropped at that point. It gets to the DATA command
> and then never issues a quit so I am assuming that it dies during this time.
>
> All of the failure notifications simply give the 4.4.7 action failed status
> on return which is the code for a delay. The email addresses in the failure
> notification have the text RFC822 in front of each address. I thought we
> must be violating a procedure in that RFC but there are so many listed I have
> no way of telling which one(s) we may be violating.
>
> The people that receive the messages do not report them being different or
> bad and of course there is the handfull that simply don't receive them.
>
> We have worked around by putting back on the original server but it is still
> a necessity to figure out where the problem is here.
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> "Al Mulnick" wrote:
>
> > Just for fun, is the destination mail server the same? Because the DSN
> > indicates that it couldn't contact the destination and therefore gave the
> > message back. Is there a syntax error, or other?
> >
> > What are they using to generate the email in .NET? Are they hand-crafting
> > the conversation (reinventing the wheel) or using some of the built in
> > functions?
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > "skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:6A8971D9-49BB-4DA2-B4C2-E2D3CB5986BF@microsoft.com...
> > > The SMTP server generated the NDR. Both servers are allowed to relay
> > > through
> > > the SMTP server and many clients get the emails from the new application
> > > server but some do not.
> > >
> > > We are investigating the following link as this may relate to the problem:
> > >
> > >
http://www.dylanbeattie.net/docs/iis6_bare_linefeed.html > > >
> > > Although we did not upgrade the version of IIS the new application server
> > > is
> > > running a .NET app different from the Adobe application on the first app
> > > server to generate the emails and I have the sneaking suspesion they
> > > programmed it incorrectly.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply and if you have any other thoughts please let me
> > > know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Al Mulnick" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Which server generated the NDR?
> > >> Likely a relay restriction, but it would be helpful to know which MTA
> > >> created the NDR.
> > >>
> > >> Al
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "skyline" <skyline@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:325196A5-27FC-4883-8394-87C217F21AD0@microsoft.com...
> > >> > Here is a background on our setup: we have one server that is setup as
> > >> > an
> > >> > SMTP relay that has an MX record configured and a FQDN. We have
> > >> > another
> > >> > application server creating messages via Adobe Central Pro and relaying
> > >> > them
> > >> > through this SMTP server. During the HELO to the internal SMTP server,
> > >> > the
> > >> > internal application server is "lying" to our internal SMTP server by
> > >> > saying
> > >> > HELO SMTPSERVERINTERNALIP during the communications as opposed to
> > >> > saying
> > >> > HELO
> > >> > MYINTERNALSERVERIP. This relaying has worked without a problem, and
> > >> > looking
> > >> > at successful mail headers we can see the following line:
> > >> >
> > >> > Received: From SMTPINTERNALIP {ADOBESERVERINTERNALIP} by
> > >> > mail.externaldns.com etc.
> > >> >
> > >> > Now we have added another application server to do some of this message
> > >> > creating. Initially it was configured to send this HELO command when
> > >> > connecting to the SMTP server:
> > >> >
> > >> > HELO NEWINTERNALSERVERNAME
> > >> >
> > >> > And looking at the mail header for this new server:
> > >> >
> > >> > from NEWINTERNALSERVERNAME ([NEWINTERNALSERVERNAMEIPADDRESS]) by
> > >> > mail.externaldns.com etc
> > >> >
> > >> > So now since it is sending the servername in the HELO command many of
> > >> > our
> > >> > clients are not receiving emails from us from the new server. The old
> > >> > server
> > >> > configuration works fine still. Now our developers are changing the
> > >> > new
> > >> > application to match the existing one but I still wonder why on Earth
> > >> > messages using the INTERNALSERVERDNSNAME would stop working. For these
> > >> > addresses using the INTERNALSERVERDNSNAME we are receiving several
> > >> > delay
> > >> > notifications before sending the failure notification with a status of
> > >> > 4.4.7
> > >> > action failed. Here is the failure notification message:
> > >> >
> > >> > This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
> > >> >
> > >> > Unable to deliver message to the following recipients, due to being
> > >> > unable
> > >> > to connect successfully to the destination mail server.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can anyone provide any insight as to why this would occur?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >