XF 1.5 How to repair accounts after mishandling of bounce status?

Alpha1

Well-known member
Microsoft has started blocking emails because it blocks my complete email server. There is nothing wrong with the recipient email.
I have about 100k members with hotmail, live, outlook. While there is nothing wrong with these addresses, XenForo is registering the notification as a status that needs to be registered as an actionable bounce. i.e. a mass of members with good email addresses are getting their account deactivated and see our standard notice for members with bounce status to fix up their email account.

This is the message that Microsoft is sending:

Code:
Action: failed

Status: 5.7.1

Remote-MTA: dns; outlook-com.olc.protection.outlook.com

Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 Unfortunately, messages from [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]

    weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider since part of

    their network is on our block list (S3140). You can also refer your

    provider to http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors.

    [HE1EUR01FT013.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com]
Obviously the blacklisting is something I needed to address with Microsoft(which I have), but IMO XenForo should not handle this bounce message as it does.

To make matters worse, xf does not have any way to batch update the status of these accounts. I think the only way to repair the deactivated accounts is by database queries.

What query can I use to set all accounts which have status 'email_confirm' and email includes hotmail, live or outlook to 'valid' ?
 
You can use this query, but is for alle users that are in a bounced state.
Code:
UPDATE xf_user
SET user_state = 'valid'
WHERE user_state = 'email_bounce';

email_confirm state is when they have made a new account and have to confirm. Not sure how to include email where provider used.

Maybe adding these? But has to be confirmed first, not sure you can add it like that.
WHERE email LIKE 'hotmail'
WHERE email LIKE 'outlook'

For sending to outlook you can select this opion when using cpanel to decrease change of being flagged as spam: Exim configuration manager -> Set SMTP Sender: headers
 
The mail server is not on any blacklist. Microsoft just decided to block a range of Digital Ocean IP addresses which happened to include my mail server. Its unblocked now. I need to batch update the accounts.
 
The mail server is not on any blacklist. Microsoft just decided to block a range of Digital Ocean IP addresses which happened to include my mail server. Its unblocked now. I need to batch update the accounts.
That really doesn't surprise me. Digital Ocean has a huge number of sites that do nothing but send spam. And repeated complaints to their abuse department do little to nothing.

These are IPs are completely blocked on one of my servers...
Code:
# DIGITAL OCEAN
159.89.0.0/16 
159.203.0.0/16
178.128.0.0/16
206.189.0.0/16

I know it's a bit off topic, but I thought you should know why they are blocked at MS.
 
The mail server is not on any blacklist. Microsoft just decided to block a range of Digital Ocean IP addresses which happened to include my mail server. Its unblocked now. I need to batch update the accounts.

Digital ocean is also used by some VPN's/proxy services (chrome extensions) and many IP's from that are flagged or blocked (if it is the same).
 
Last edited:
That really doesn't surprise me. Digital Ocean has a huge number of sites that do nothing but send spam. And repeated complaints to their abuse department do little to nothing.
It sounds like their abuse department is as responsive as their support department. I'm probably going to switch to sendy + Amazon SES.
 
Ironically I'm not having any delivery issues using a DO droplet. Originally I did have to have the IP mitigated, but it seems that it's still unblocked.
This issue can (and does) happen with ANY VPS provider that is not "top tier". Spammers will use any of them now. It's one of the reasons I've contemplated moving my mail server off of the DO droplet and over to a VPS on RamNode. They seem to be a little more strict with their enforcement.
 
Top Bottom