Yup .. the thread (now I've found it) doesn't lend much to the problem sadly
What we've done so far is removed IPv6 from some of our root name servers removed IPv6 from some of our MX receivers removed multiple A records from some of our MX receivers We seem to be able to receive emails again from hotmail as a result I need to understand more about which of the above finally did the trick .. we did each of the above about 12 hours apart and it wasn't until this morning that we started seeing emails arriving again but I don't know how much of that is down to M$'s internal caches We're also peering with MS via LINX's route reflectors and traceroutes into their network seem to indicate some weird filtering anyway traceroute to 157.55.1.146 (157.55.1.146), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 93.188.183.1 (93.188.183.1) 2.483 ms 2.725 ms 3.014 ms 2 r1-ge-1.access.fido.net (80.252.124.1) 3.374 ms 3.369 ms 3.435 ms 3 igbtmdistc7503.msft.net (195.66.236.140) 0.612 ms 0.614 ms 0.605 ms 4 xe-1-2-0-0.lts-96cbe-1b.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.42.96) 0.707 ms 207.46.42.248 (207.46.42.248) 11.136 ms xe-4-3-0-0.db3-96c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.42.184) 11.109 ms 5 207.46.42.243 (207.46.42.243) 14.482 ms xe-3-0-0-0.db3-96c-1a.ntwk.msn.net (207.46.42.32) 11.382 ms * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * [root@fido-1b ~]# traceroute -I 157.55.1.146 traceroute to 157.55.1.146 (157.55.1.146), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 93.188.183.1 (93.188.183.1) 1.405 ms 1.644 ms 1.892 ms 2 r1-ge-1.access.fido.net (80.252.124.1) 3.124 ms 3.126 ms 3.131 ms 3 igbtmdistc7503.msft.net (195.66.236.140) 0.765 ms 0.770 ms 0.771 ms 4 * * * 5 207.46.42.243 (207.46.42.243) 11.446 ms 11.263 ms 11.268 ms 6 10.22.178.28 (10.22.178.28) 11.695 ms 12.712 ms 12.709 ms 7 dub0-omc2-s7.dub0.hotmail.com (157.55.1.146) 13.085 ms 12.054 ms 12.055 ms On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:22, James Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > There was a long thread on this subject over on [email protected]. > entitled "Hotmail ignoring MX, going direct to @ IN A?" in March/April > last year. I don't think it contains any answers, but you may find it > interesting.
