esarrat

Thanks Tony !

Hello,

Back to work on this subject, I found out that the WordPress site I want to duplicate on my local computer (or on another online host I have readily available if that’s less cumbersome) has the following file structure:

www folder
– index/php
– tennis folder
– siteV3 folder
— favicon.ico
— index.php
— license.txt
— readme.html
— wp-activate.php
— … all the other wp-… files and folders
— xmlrpc.php

Given that the plugins you advised to use seem to be WordPress specific, I wonder whether they’ll be able to duplicate the site entirely. Would you know ?…

And if that’s not the case, is there another solution ?

Thank you !

Thank you for the advice, Tony

Thank you for your feedback Eric, I’ll look into this option.

Thanks again Henrik !

Thank you Henrik,

Not sure how to get a correct DMARC SPF alignment …

Here is the content of the DNS zone of my site. Is there anything that jumps out as incorrect or to change in order to fix that ?…

$TTL 86400
@ IN SOA dns10.ovh.net. tech.ovh.net. (2016060200 86400 3600 3600000 86400)
IN NS dns10.ovh.net.
IN NS ns10.ovh.net.
IN MX 1 mx1.ovh.net.
IN MX 100 mxb.ovh.net.
IN MX 5 mx2.ovh.net.
IN A 213.186.33.17
3600 IN TXT “google-site-verification=AvsFP8kOu20WHVWIPZ2IeNeaeIEGwvEjCbFza9MeYc4”
3600 IN TXT “v=spf1 include:mx.ovh.com ~all”
_dmarc IN TXT “v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:[email protected]; aspf=r”
_jabber._tcp IN CNAME _jabber._tcp.mediaplan.ovh.net.
_sip._udp IN CNAME _sip._udp.mediaplan.ovh.net.
_xmpp-client._tcp IN CNAME _xmpp-client._tcp.mediaplan.ovh.net.
_xmpp-server._tcp IN CNAME _xmpp-server._tcp.mediaplan.ovh.net.
audio IN CNAME audio.ovh.net.
forum IN A 213.186.33.17
ftp IN CNAME https://ftp.cluster006.ovh.net.
ftp2 IN CNAME anonymous.ftp.ovh.net.
imp IN CNAME imp.ovh.net.
jabber IN CNAME jab1.mediaplan.ovh.net.
mail IN CNAME ns0.ovh.net.
ox IN CNAME ox.ovh.net.
pop3 IN CNAME ns0.ovh.net.
sip IN CNAME sip1.mediaplan.ovh.net.
smtp IN CNAME ns0.ovh.net.
squirrel IN CNAME squirrel.ovh.net.
vpn IN CNAME vpn.mediaplan.ovh.net.
www IN CNAME marsinval.fr.
wys._domainkey IN TXT “v=DKIM1;s=email;t=s;p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDE/jarD7aheIsfqk7HesWUxdQNr8mHiOzaWvUIZG57lWafUVGf+/98Nw9b/WqH4MErVeb1L/WjYffdz/KySirH6XPRr2X+LbOENpxvycp1VX7hMnAhTn+JMLfAH5LBuwXJAJw9IWSxLRJF5DQHPOXguLDkavvRd0vTK9DuxUUoEQIDAQ”

Kind regards,
Eric.

Thank you very much Henrik !

I’ll try that and advise.

Kind regards,
Eric.

Sorry for the delay in responding, here is the link to the Mail-Tester results:

https://www.mail-tester.com/check.php?id=wysija-bWFyc2ludmFsLmZyL3NpdGV2Mw-1464880325%40mail-tester.com&lang=fr_FR

Eric.

Here is the requested URL

https://www.mail-tester.com/check.php?id=wysija-bWFyc2ludmFsLmZyL3NpdGV2Mw-1464880325%40mail-tester.com&lang=fr_FR

As indicated my other post, the reports sent by Yahoo and Google seem at odds with the good news above ??

I am going to close this post and only keep the other one for the sake of simplicity.

Thank you !

Hello, thank you for your answers and apologies for the direct reply Adrian !

After waiting a day to enable DNS changes to take effect, the Mail-Tester returns a spotless result, confirming that all is fine.

However, the subsequent reports received from Google shows a “fail” score for DKIM and SPF, with the reason: “sampled-out”. Would you know what is still wrong ? Here is the content of the report:

<feedback>
<report_metadata>
<org_name>google.com</org_name>
<email>[email protected]</email>
<extra_contact_info>https://support.google.com/a/answer/2466580</extra_contact_info&gt;
<report_id>2193209771817606709</report_id>
<date_range>
<begin>1464739200</begin>
<end>1464825599</end>
</date_range>
</report_metadata>
<policy_published>
<domain>marsinval.fr</domain>
<adkim>r</adkim>
<aspf>r</aspf>
<p>none</p>
<sp>none</sp>
<pct>20</pct>
</policy_published>
<record>
<row>
<source_ip>46.105.46.159</source_ip>
<count>1</count>
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition>none</disposition>
<dkim>fail</dkim>
<spf>fail</spf>
<reason>
<type>sampled_out</type>
<comment></comment>
</reason>
</policy_evaluated>
</row>
<identifiers>
<header_from>marsinval.fr</header_from>
</identifiers>
<auth_results>
<spf>
<domain>116-prod.mail-out.ovh.net</domain>
<result>pass</result>
</spf>
</auth_results>
</record>
</feedback>

There is a consistent feedback from Yahoo:

<?xml version=”1.0″?>
<feedback>
<report_metadata>
<org_name>Yahoo! Inc.</org_name>
<email>[email protected]</email>
<report_id>1464745895.509953</report_id>
<date_range>
<begin>1464652800</begin>
<end>1464739199 </end>
</date_range>
</report_metadata>
<policy_published>
<domain>marsinval.fr</domain>
<adkim>r</adkim>
<aspf>r</aspf>
<p>none</p>
<pct>20</pct>
</policy_published>
<record>
<row>
<source_ip>209.85.213.47</source_ip>
<count>1</count>
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition>none</disposition>
<dkim>fail</dkim>
<spf>fail</spf>
</policy_evaluated>
</row>
<identifiers>
<header_from>marsinval.fr</header_from>
</identifiers>
<auth_results>
<dkim>
<domain>gmail.com</domain>
<result>neutral</result>
</dkim>
<spf>
<domain>gmail.com</domain>
<result>pass</result>
</spf>
</auth_results>
</record>
<record>
<row>
<source_ip>209.85.213.52</source_ip>
<count>1</count>
<policy_evaluated>
<disposition>none</disposition>
<dkim>fail</dkim>
<spf>fail</spf>
</policy_evaluated>
</row>
<identifiers>
<header_from>marsinval.fr</header_from>
</identifiers>
<auth_results>
<dkim>
<domain>gmail.com</domain>
<result>neutral</result>
</dkim>
<spf>
<domain>gmail.com</domain>
<result>pass</result>
</spf>
</auth_results>
</record>
</feedback>

Your lights highly appreciated ??

Thank you,
Eric.

Hi,
I could bypass the issue by specifying a low frequency sending, i.e. setting the send parameters to release 5 mails every 15 minutes – instead of sending the 300 in one shot as I had always done it.
It looks like the stringent DMARC controls are comprehensively applied only to large quantities of mails received from the same sender.
Eric.

Hi,
It appears that the mass rejection of e-mails by Yahoo, Gmail et. al. is all but disappearing when mails are being sent out at slow pace (5 every 15 minutes in my last – successful – try) instead of being released all 300 together.
Eric.

Hi Jake,
Indeed, there are strange things happening with MailPoet. The latest I experienced is that the pre-view I am sending to my mailbox is bouncing (see error message sent by Yahoo above), while the same newsletter sent out to a mailing list that I am part of a few hours later makes it to the same mailbox. How come ?…
I will try the Spam Score tool provided by MailPoet.
Eric.

Hello,
I wish I were knowledgable enough to issue recommendations !
The problem is really puzzling: for instance,a test sending to a mail list of 14 addresses (Yahoo, GMail, et. al.) worked fine, but immediately thereafter, the attempt to send to my yahoo address a pre-view of the next newsletter bounced …
One hypothesis is that mass mailing triggers more stringent controls by Yahoo, GMail and others.
I might try to (re)send my NewsLetter to its 300 or so intended destinations with an instruction to release them by batch of 5 every 15 minutes.
Really groping my way, and bracing for resorting to use SendMail… without being assured that it will be a solution !
Eric.

Hello Ponyreitenrockt

I’ve asked my hoster; they advised that the issue does not originate with them.
To be more precise about the problem, here is the kind of error message that is fed back explanation of the mails having bounced:

Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550-5.7.1 Unauthenticated email from yahoo.fr is not
accepted due to domain’s 550-5.7.1 DMARC policy. Please contact
administrator of yahoo.fr domain if this 550-5.7.1 was a legitimate mail.
Please visit 550-5.7.1 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/2451690 to
learn about DMARC 550 5.7.1 initiative. lm2si30763643wjc.202 – gsmtp

Action: failed
Status: 5.7.9
Remote-MTA: dns; mx-eu.mail.am0.yahoodns.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 554 5.7.9 Message not accepted for policy reasons. See
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/postmaster/SLN7253.html

I was also advised to use SendGrid, but didn’t do it … yet.

Eric.