Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
Postfix / Re: EMAIL SENT FROM CWP GOING TO SPAM
« on: August 05, 2021, 09:37:09 AM »
I am having same problem.
My SPF and iprev and DKIM check all are okay
This message is an automatic response from Port25's authentication verifier
service at verifier.port25.com. The service allows email senders to perform
a simple check of various sender authentication mechanisms. It is provided
free of charge, in the hope that it is useful to the email community. While
it is not officially supported, we welcome any feedback you may have at
<verifier-feedback@port25.com>.
Thank you for using the verifier,
The Port25 Solutions, Inc. team
==========================================================
Summary of Results
==========================================================
SPF check: pass
"iprev" check: pass
DKIM check: pass
==========================================================
Details:
==========================================================
HELO hostname: server1.hostiko.in
Source IP: 139.59.43.122
mail-from: info@quickwebworks.com
----------------------------------------------------------
SPF check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass
ID(s) verified: smtp.mailfrom=info@quickwebworks.com
DNS record(s):
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=jWjr_biMGrWjebqh4hDExUjcReP7d0UYGKs6UFQx3Zo"
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "v-spf1 mx a"
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:139.59.43.122 ~all"
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN A 104.21.42.140
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN A 172.67.162.127
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN MX 0 server1.hostiko.in.
server1.hostiko.in. 300 IN A 139.59.43.122
----------------------------------------------------------
"iprev" check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass (matches server1.hostiko.in)
ID(s) verified: policy.iprev=139.59.43.122
DNS record(s):
122.43.59.139.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN PTR server1.hostiko.in.
server1.hostiko.in. 300 IN A 139.59.43.122
----------------------------------------------------------
DKIM check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass (matches From: info@quickwebworks.com)
ID(s) verified: header.d=quickwebworks.com
Canonicalized Headers:
to:check-auth@verifier.port25.com'0D''0A'
from:Quick'20'Web'20'Works'20'<info@quickwebworks.com>'0D''0A'
date:Thu,'20'5'20'Aug'20'2021'20'14:55:40'20'+0530'0D''0A'
dkim-signature:v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha256;'20'c=relaxed/simple;'20'd=quickwebworks.com;'20's=default;'20't=1628155544;'20'bh=frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=;'20'h=To:From:Date;'20'b=
Canonicalized Body:
'0D''0A'
DNS record(s):
default._domainkey.quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC9nDfJgnpcXuBEjs8BuvM6JjkhKNsdbWmbPB6dTfZqCbkGIMDtNeNKTo9aFp6vO5pH9QidRLH4WekTb1iJHUy5zhBmglivI/9M/obdBcVBxW6TRPidRB7U4eIS/kwsjMcv7+NvtwHJA6W+3eMNiqRX4FInH706IcvOPcqUoKlF5QIDAQAB"
Public key used for verification: default._domainkey.quickwebworks.com (1024 bits)
NOTE: DKIM checking has been performed based on the latest DKIM specs
(RFC 4871 or draft-ietf-dkim-base-10) and verification may fail for
older versions. If you are using Port25's PowerMTA, you need to use
version 3.2r11 or later to get a compatible version of DKIM.
==============================================================
Explanation of the possible results (based on RFCs 7601, 7208)
==============================================================
DKIM Results
============
none: The message was not signed.
pass: The message was signed, the signature or signatures were
acceptable to the ADMD, and the signature(s) passed verification
tests.
fail: The message was signed and the signature or signatures were
acceptable to the ADMD, but they failed the verification test(s).
policy: The message was signed, but some aspect of the signature or
signatures was not acceptable to the ADMD.
neutral: The message was signed, but the signature or signatures
contained syntax errors or were not otherwise able to be
processed. This result is also used for other failures not
covered elsewhere in this list.
temperror: The message could not be verified due to some error that
is likely transient in nature, such as a temporary inability to
retrieve a public key. A later attempt may produce a final
result.
permerror: The message could not be verified due to some error that
is unrecoverable, such as a required header field being absent. A
later attempt is unlikely to produce a final result.
SPF Results
===========
none: Either (a) no syntactically valid DNS domain name was extracted from
the SMTP session that could be used as the one to be authorized, or
(b) no SPF records were retrieved from the DNS.
neutral: The ADMD has explicitly stated that it is not asserting whether
the IP address is authorized.
pass: An explicit statement that the client is authorized to inject mail
with the given identity.
fail: An explicit statement that the client is not authorized to use the
domain in the given identity.
softfail: A weak statement by the publishing ADMD that the host is probably
not authorized. It has not published a stronger, more definitive policy
that results in a "fail".
temperror: The SPF verifier encountered a transient (generally DNS) error
while performing the check. A later retry may succeed without further
DNS operator action.
permerror: The domain's published records could not be correctly interpreted.
This signals an error condition that definitely requires DNS operator
intervention to be resolved.
"iprev" Results
===============
pass: The DNS evaluation succeeded, i.e., the "reverse" and
"forward" lookup results were returned and were in agreement.
fail: The DNS evaluation failed. In particular, the "reverse" and
"forward" lookups each produced results, but they were not in
agreement, or the "forward" query completed but produced no
result, e.g., a DNS RCODE of 3, commonly known as NXDOMAIN, or an
RCODE of 0 (NOERROR) in a reply containing no answers, was
returned.
temperror: The DNS evaluation could not be completed due to some
error that is likely transient in nature, such as a temporary DNS
error, e.g., a DNS RCODE of 2, commonly known as SERVFAIL, or
other error condition resulted. A later attempt may produce a
final result.
permerror: The DNS evaluation could not be completed because no PTR
data are published for the connecting IP address, e.g., a DNS
RCODE of 3, commonly known as NXDOMAIN, or an RCODE of 0 (NOERROR)
in a reply containing no answers, was returned. This prevented
completion of the evaluation. A later attempt is unlikely to
produce a final result.
==========================================================
Original Email
==========================================================
Return-Path: <info@quickwebworks.com>
Received: from server1.hostiko.in (139.59.43.122) by verifier.port25.com id h1en9m2p2toa for <check-auth@verifier.port25.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:25:47 +0000 (envelope-from <info@quickwebworks.com>)
Authentication-Results: verifier.port25.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=info@quickwebworks.com;
iprev=pass (matches server1.hostiko.in) policy.iprev=139.59.43.122;
dkim=pass (matches From: info@quickwebworks.com) header.d=quickwebworks.com
Received: from [192.168.1.74] (unknown [180.188.232.207])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by server1.hostiko.in (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87E6046971C;
Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:55:44 +0530 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=quickwebworks.com;
s=default; t=1628155544;
bh=frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=; h=To:From:Date;
b=CbCs/49nQqu2z8ySVooNgMl/ZYIkcLAkJJeNAAYB13CWsOulbrEk8NxVyD0+Ne8yk
3houjXJO7JVOUbjFATTx/9QRNzrnWla6zH0VC3LmpX4eCyIcqh9KL0K7eMzd2xPIzb
syybhx4laDwcUDfC4KW3AYycWdcjEMSDYf7l0RXE=
To: check-auth@verifier.port25.com
From: Quick Web Works <info@quickwebworks.com>
Organization: Quick Web Works
Message-ID: <69ae235b-bc42-e0a3-6335-badd318cbbfc@quickwebworks.com>
Disposition-Notification-To: Quick Web Works <info@quickwebworks.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:55:40 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
IP Reputation is Good
DMARC is okay
After that its going to spam in Gmail, Hotmail and some other domains. I don't have any solutions to this.
I know that its not a CWP problem. CWP support is really good. But they can help us to reach our goal.
or I can buy there support if the solution is paid.
My SPF and iprev and DKIM check all are okay
This message is an automatic response from Port25's authentication verifier
service at verifier.port25.com. The service allows email senders to perform
a simple check of various sender authentication mechanisms. It is provided
free of charge, in the hope that it is useful to the email community. While
it is not officially supported, we welcome any feedback you may have at
<verifier-feedback@port25.com>.
Thank you for using the verifier,
The Port25 Solutions, Inc. team
==========================================================
Summary of Results
==========================================================
SPF check: pass
"iprev" check: pass
DKIM check: pass
==========================================================
Details:
==========================================================
HELO hostname: server1.hostiko.in
Source IP: 139.59.43.122
mail-from: info@quickwebworks.com
----------------------------------------------------------
SPF check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass
ID(s) verified: smtp.mailfrom=info@quickwebworks.com
DNS record(s):
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=jWjr_biMGrWjebqh4hDExUjcReP7d0UYGKs6UFQx3Zo"
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "v-spf1 mx a"
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:139.59.43.122 ~all"
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN A 104.21.42.140
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN A 172.67.162.127
quickwebworks.com. 300 IN MX 0 server1.hostiko.in.
server1.hostiko.in. 300 IN A 139.59.43.122
----------------------------------------------------------
"iprev" check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass (matches server1.hostiko.in)
ID(s) verified: policy.iprev=139.59.43.122
DNS record(s):
122.43.59.139.in-addr.arpa. 300 IN PTR server1.hostiko.in.
server1.hostiko.in. 300 IN A 139.59.43.122
----------------------------------------------------------
DKIM check details:
----------------------------------------------------------
Result: pass (matches From: info@quickwebworks.com)
ID(s) verified: header.d=quickwebworks.com
Canonicalized Headers:
to:check-auth@verifier.port25.com'0D''0A'
from:Quick'20'Web'20'Works'20'<info@quickwebworks.com>'0D''0A'
date:Thu,'20'5'20'Aug'20'2021'20'14:55:40'20'+0530'0D''0A'
dkim-signature:v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha256;'20'c=relaxed/simple;'20'd=quickwebworks.com;'20's=default;'20't=1628155544;'20'bh=frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=;'20'h=To:From:Date;'20'b=
Canonicalized Body:
'0D''0A'
DNS record(s):
default._domainkey.quickwebworks.com. 300 IN TXT "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC9nDfJgnpcXuBEjs8BuvM6JjkhKNsdbWmbPB6dTfZqCbkGIMDtNeNKTo9aFp6vO5pH9QidRLH4WekTb1iJHUy5zhBmglivI/9M/obdBcVBxW6TRPidRB7U4eIS/kwsjMcv7+NvtwHJA6W+3eMNiqRX4FInH706IcvOPcqUoKlF5QIDAQAB"
Public key used for verification: default._domainkey.quickwebworks.com (1024 bits)
NOTE: DKIM checking has been performed based on the latest DKIM specs
(RFC 4871 or draft-ietf-dkim-base-10) and verification may fail for
older versions. If you are using Port25's PowerMTA, you need to use
version 3.2r11 or later to get a compatible version of DKIM.
==============================================================
Explanation of the possible results (based on RFCs 7601, 7208)
==============================================================
DKIM Results
============
none: The message was not signed.
pass: The message was signed, the signature or signatures were
acceptable to the ADMD, and the signature(s) passed verification
tests.
fail: The message was signed and the signature or signatures were
acceptable to the ADMD, but they failed the verification test(s).
policy: The message was signed, but some aspect of the signature or
signatures was not acceptable to the ADMD.
neutral: The message was signed, but the signature or signatures
contained syntax errors or were not otherwise able to be
processed. This result is also used for other failures not
covered elsewhere in this list.
temperror: The message could not be verified due to some error that
is likely transient in nature, such as a temporary inability to
retrieve a public key. A later attempt may produce a final
result.
permerror: The message could not be verified due to some error that
is unrecoverable, such as a required header field being absent. A
later attempt is unlikely to produce a final result.
SPF Results
===========
none: Either (a) no syntactically valid DNS domain name was extracted from
the SMTP session that could be used as the one to be authorized, or
(b) no SPF records were retrieved from the DNS.
neutral: The ADMD has explicitly stated that it is not asserting whether
the IP address is authorized.
pass: An explicit statement that the client is authorized to inject mail
with the given identity.
fail: An explicit statement that the client is not authorized to use the
domain in the given identity.
softfail: A weak statement by the publishing ADMD that the host is probably
not authorized. It has not published a stronger, more definitive policy
that results in a "fail".
temperror: The SPF verifier encountered a transient (generally DNS) error
while performing the check. A later retry may succeed without further
DNS operator action.
permerror: The domain's published records could not be correctly interpreted.
This signals an error condition that definitely requires DNS operator
intervention to be resolved.
"iprev" Results
===============
pass: The DNS evaluation succeeded, i.e., the "reverse" and
"forward" lookup results were returned and were in agreement.
fail: The DNS evaluation failed. In particular, the "reverse" and
"forward" lookups each produced results, but they were not in
agreement, or the "forward" query completed but produced no
result, e.g., a DNS RCODE of 3, commonly known as NXDOMAIN, or an
RCODE of 0 (NOERROR) in a reply containing no answers, was
returned.
temperror: The DNS evaluation could not be completed due to some
error that is likely transient in nature, such as a temporary DNS
error, e.g., a DNS RCODE of 2, commonly known as SERVFAIL, or
other error condition resulted. A later attempt may produce a
final result.
permerror: The DNS evaluation could not be completed because no PTR
data are published for the connecting IP address, e.g., a DNS
RCODE of 3, commonly known as NXDOMAIN, or an RCODE of 0 (NOERROR)
in a reply containing no answers, was returned. This prevented
completion of the evaluation. A later attempt is unlikely to
produce a final result.
==========================================================
Original Email
==========================================================
Return-Path: <info@quickwebworks.com>
Received: from server1.hostiko.in (139.59.43.122) by verifier.port25.com id h1en9m2p2toa for <check-auth@verifier.port25.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:25:47 +0000 (envelope-from <info@quickwebworks.com>)
Authentication-Results: verifier.port25.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=info@quickwebworks.com;
iprev=pass (matches server1.hostiko.in) policy.iprev=139.59.43.122;
dkim=pass (matches From: info@quickwebworks.com) header.d=quickwebworks.com
Received: from [192.168.1.74] (unknown [180.188.232.207])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by server1.hostiko.in (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87E6046971C;
Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:55:44 +0530 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=quickwebworks.com;
s=default; t=1628155544;
bh=frcCV1k9oG9oKj3dpUqdJg1PxRT2RSN/XKdLCPjaYaY=; h=To:From:Date;
b=CbCs/49nQqu2z8ySVooNgMl/ZYIkcLAkJJeNAAYB13CWsOulbrEk8NxVyD0+Ne8yk
3houjXJO7JVOUbjFATTx/9QRNzrnWla6zH0VC3LmpX4eCyIcqh9KL0K7eMzd2xPIzb
syybhx4laDwcUDfC4KW3AYycWdcjEMSDYf7l0RXE=
To: check-auth@verifier.port25.com
From: Quick Web Works <info@quickwebworks.com>
Organization: Quick Web Works
Message-ID: <69ae235b-bc42-e0a3-6335-badd318cbbfc@quickwebworks.com>
Disposition-Notification-To: Quick Web Works <info@quickwebworks.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 14:55:40 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
IP Reputation is Good
DMARC is okay
After that its going to spam in Gmail, Hotmail and some other domains. I don't have any solutions to this.
I know that its not a CWP problem. CWP support is really good. But they can help us to reach our goal.
or I can buy there support if the solution is paid.
2
Apache / Re: 403 Forbidden
« on: December 28, 2020, 07:10:43 AM »
I am getting This Error 403 Forbidden.
Tried From a long time, but does not know how it will show the directory lists rather than 403 Forbidden.
https://quickwebworks.com/demo/
Please help or post article link to resolve it.
Tried From a long time, but does not know how it will show the directory lists rather than 403 Forbidden.
https://quickwebworks.com/demo/
Please help or post article link to resolve it.
3
E-Mail / Re: Email server security.
« on: May 16, 2020, 05:46:59 PM »
Installing Spamhaus is mandate in AntiSpam or we can leave Uninstall it ?
4
Installation / Re: Hi, is it possible to add Redis and opcache in CWP Panel?
« on: November 14, 2019, 08:04:51 AM »5
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: BIND DNS Server - Failed Every 2 days
« on: September 08, 2019, 03:16:23 PM »
Try CWP Paid Support, Its really really good and affordable.
6
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: BIND DNS Server - Failed Every 2 days
« on: July 26, 2019, 06:05:47 PM »
Do we really have the solution in CWP for Bind DNS Server Failed Every 2 Days?
Or CWP can not be run for professional purpose.
Please let me know clearly What is the Error? and Why its Coming?
Or CWP can not be run for professional purpose.
Please let me know clearly What is the Error? and Why its Coming?
7
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: Warning: mysqli_connect(): (HY000/2002)
« on: July 26, 2019, 05:59:09 PM »
I tried
[mysqld]
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 512M
But no solution still not working. Getting same error after 2 days or more days.
This is the Major Problem with panel.
I wanna to know if i will go for Paid Support. This problem will be solved or remains the same.
[mysqld]
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 512M
But no solution still not working. Getting same error after 2 days or more days.
This is the Major Problem with panel.
I wanna to know if i will go for Paid Support. This problem will be solved or remains the same.
8
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: BIND DNS Server - Failed Every 2 days
« on: July 24, 2019, 08:05:37 AM »
Again Its Failed.
I wanna to know the reason why its failed.
And if i will go for Paid Support.
Will my issue is resolved?
I wanna to know the reason why its failed.
And if i will go for Paid Support.
Will my issue is resolved?
9
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: BIND DNS Server - Failed Every 2 days
« on: July 13, 2019, 05:49:04 PM »
CPU Model: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650L v3 @ 1.80GHz
CPU Details: 2 Core (1800 MHz)
Distro Name: CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804 (Core)
Kernel Version: 3.10.0-862.2.3.el7.x86_64
Platform: x86_64
RAM : 4GB
CPU Details: 2 Core (1800 MHz)
Distro Name: CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804 (Core)
Kernel Version: 3.10.0-862.2.3.el7.x86_64
Platform: x86_64
RAM : 4GB
10
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: BIND DNS Server - Failed Every 2 days
« on: July 08, 2019, 06:48:47 AM »
Sir, Which Log File i have to Check and What is the Solution for it.
Low memory maybe the problem i am also getting the lfd email for Low Memory.
But what is the solution for It.
Low memory maybe the problem i am also getting the lfd email for Low Memory.
But what is the solution for It.
11
CentOS 7 Problems / Re: BIND DNS Server - Failed Every 2 days
« on: June 28, 2019, 04:07:07 PM »
I am also having the same problem.
But its happening from last 3 Months.
Each and Every 2-3 Days Time My Bind DNS Failed and Firewall Goes Off.
But its happening from last 3 Months.
Each and Every 2-3 Days Time My Bind DNS Failed and Firewall Goes Off.
Pages: [1]
