Top
Best
New

Posted by xmddmx 20 hours ago

Outlook.com is rejecting email from domains without DMARC(mailroute.net)
488 points | 334 commentspage 2
Tree1993 16 hours ago|
I self-host my email system and rarely send any outbound email. Occasionally I receive emails from individual users. Users on Microsoft’s email service can send emails to me, but my replies are rejected outright. This doesn’t happen with Gmail or other email providers.
cyrusmg 3 hours ago||
Since yesterday my email started getting blocked. Does anyone know what's going on ?

  5.4.1 smtp; 550 5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied.
  For more information see https://aka.ms/…ors
  <redacted>.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com 2026-11-08T19:48:58.651Z <redacted>]
dwm 2 hours ago|
You could consider following the URL in the bounce message. Or searching online for the particular error code, which quickly turns up:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/exchange/emai...

cyrusmg 2 hours ago||
Thanks!

Some additional context:

- I checked online and they do have this email address listed on their pages

- This affected 2 separate domains served by Microsoft

- I sent them an inquiry email now from my @gmail.com and no bounce was returned so far

EDIT: Also gmail got the error response, so I guess it's really up to the outlook server these unrelated entities use...

Grimeton 15 hours ago||
The only mistake people make here is to accept that the problem is on their end even after Microsoft has accepted the e-mail but silently discarded it. This leads to the customer impression that the mistake happens on their end and not on Microsoft's.

When I see in my logs that the e-mail has been successfully delivered to their MTA then I don't have a problem.

cowlevel 10 hours ago|
Yep. Let's say for example you were sending a legally important email saying you did something, and your customer tried to sue you over not sending the email. If you sent it and the customer's agent (Microsoft) dropped it, that's a problem between the customer and their agent, and you are not liable.

(If this happens to you, don't admit that you know Microsoft drops your emails, or you'll be liable again!)

origini 3 hours ago||
I don't get the Email thing anyway.

I had an email server and configured everything by the book. Still some scammer were able to send emails which looked like they came from me, so i got responds back.

If not even this was fixed...

whh 3 hours ago|
That's what DMARC and DKIM can help with. If you have `p=reject` then anything failing your DKIM check will be rejected by the recipient mail server (if it supports DMARC)
subset 15 hours ago||
On an unrelated but frustrating "silent behaviour" note, I hate how Outlook rewrites URLs to add their "safe links" domain indirection. Just show me the damn raw URL!
tjwds 19 hours ago||
> Quietly Rejecting Email

> The sender gets a bounce

?

cowlevel 10 hours ago||
"quietly" is a sign that an LLM wrote it
Aachen 18 hours ago||
My first thought as well: how does one quietly reject email? Skimmed the comments and clearly it's not quietly. Saved a click...

It's quiet only if the server accepts it and then deletes it on their end without notifying the sender, but if your mail provider shreds your mail that's then also your provider's responsibility and not the sender's

kevincox 4 hours ago|||
Lots of big email services do quietly reject mail. They successfully accept it but then throw it away (sometimes not even in the spam folder for particularly high span scores).
Aachen 45 minutes ago||
That's their issue. Don't be a customer at such an email provider :shrug:

I had a legal dispute once where a shop didn't provide warranty on a product. They took the product in but then it was indefinitely in repair. Long story short, it ended up being helpful that I have email server logs that show every transaction, so that I could say "on date+time the email was delivered to IP address X, which was registered as the mail exchanger for your domain, and your server took the email with status code XYZ Queued <ID> For Delivery." Would have been interesting to hear what a judge has to say about it but they simply agreed to give the full purchase price back after that

Afaik that's not what Microsoft/Hotmail does though: since it rejects noncompliant setups (as well as a lot of legitimate email, unfortunately), the sender gets a delivery failure notification

dboreham 15 hours ago|||
Replying to all inbound messages with a bounce is an old idea. The theory was that legitimate senders would validate their address and get added to a white list. The scheme didn't work for the same reason captchas don't work.
Aachen 5 hours ago||
Maybe an old idea and you can feel about it however you want, but it's still in universal use right? So it's not quiet or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
ofcrpls 19 hours ago||
I have the opposite problem. I have a 3-letter email address, so for ease of giving out the email address, I use it, while having it forwarded to my Gmail. Somewhere around 2019, emails from legitimate services, especially password reset/OTP codes, stopped landing in my inbox or even junk because my address is so high up the chain of spammers. Nebula was the first to confirm this for me and work out of band to re-enable access to my account - their emails to me were bouncing. But ever since that happened, I’ve slowly moved back to giving my Gmail.
xmddmx 19 hours ago||
There's something called ARC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticated_Received_Chain which is supposed to handle forwarded emails, but no idea how it works in practice.

Sounds like kind of a hack:

"ARC was devised to solve this problem by giving intermediate servers a way to sign the original message's validation results. Even if the SPF and DKIM validation fail, the receiving service can choose to validate the ARC chain. If it indicates that the original message passed the SPF and DKIM checks, and the only modifications were made by intermediaries trusted by the receiving service, the receiving service may choose to accept the email."

ofcrpls 12 hours ago||
[flagged]
cowlevel 10 hours ago|||
Sounds like Gmail is the one blocking it. Stop forwarding it to Gmail and set up email directly on the address.
NooneAtAll5 19 hours ago||
huh

maybe someone was too lazy to set up "inbound block list" and just did a total blackout instead?

cowlevel 10 hours ago||
It sounds like Gmail is seeing 3000 emails a day coming from foo@bar.com, some of which are different kinds of spam, and reasonably concludes they are a spammer.
esikich 19 hours ago||
As they should. You should have done this 5 years ago. Takes like 10 minutes. Gmail has been rejecting them for years at this point.
xmddmx 19 hours ago|
"Google has been rejecting them for years..."

Not true, at least in my experiences.

I have a bunch of email accounts which have SPF and DKIM, but are missing the DMARC line - I've had no deliverability problems at all, until this weekend, and now only with Outlook. Emails to Gmail accounts go through just fine.

The combination of: √ Valid SPF √ Valid DKIM signature X Missing DMARC policy

Is clearly ambiguous. Since a DMARC of "p=none" (in the context of valid SPF and DKIM) really adds no information, so interpreting "missing DMARC" as "p=none" seems reasonable. Sounds like Microsoft was taking that approach until this weekend.

I wonder if there's an actual written standard?

jared_stewart 18 hours ago|||
Under RFC 7489 [1], a domain with no DMARC record simply has no DMARC policy, the receiver is able to enforce whatever policy it likes.

Most receivers have chosen to treat this as p=none for the last decade (Microsoft included). This is changing to now so that mail with no record is simply refused. Nothing in the standard prohibits this.

a DMARC of p=none might be seen as ambiguous - SPF and DKIM have their own jobs and they work. However, the point of DMARC is not a new way of enforcing mail authentication. Instead it is a way of making certain that the mail is internally consistent and furthermore provides two additional things.

1. it indicates if the domain owner has thoroughly gotten their mail to authenticate (in which case they adopt a p=reject), and

2. it provides a feedback mechanism that allows the domain owner to know if they are seeing authentication and deliverability problems in such a way that they can fix those broken mail flows.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489/

esikich 17 hours ago|||
Googling around this started at least a year ago, but I worked at an MSP 3 years ago when it was first announced and we started getting customers into compliance. This wasn't something out of the blue.
nottorp 5 hours ago||
I gave up last month and set up the outgoing email for my personal domain to go through the free tier of smtp2go.

Receiving is still self hosted.

alrtd82 12 hours ago|
Mail admins had 20+ years to fix config. Not saying that outlook is properly config, but it’s well overdue using solutions designed to reduce spam.
InsidiousWombat 1 hour ago||
DMARC does basically nothing. Certainly nothing that DKIM doesn't already do. Users just get phished by email that's not in their own company domain but something similar (or even completely random)
cowlevel 10 hours ago||
Does DMARC reduce spam?
thundoe 6 hours ago||
[dead]
More comments...