Your ISP needs to talk to the supplier of their anti-spam software who
needs to research the problem.
The anti-spam software is giving a false positive and needs adjusted to
allow Photo mail.
This is assuming that you aren't trying to send your message to too many
people.
The photo mail uploads the real full size images to a Microsoft server
and puts links to them in the message. The issue could be that once a
critical mass of your ISP's users have used the photo mail, the
anti-spam software has seen too many messages with links to the same
server and says aha spam!.
--
Mike -
http://pages.prodigy.net/michael_santovec/techhelp.htm
"Frustrated virgin user" <Frustrated virgin
user@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:307FB119-6F9F-48C2-9496-0AA3682C336A@xxxxxx
| Quote: |  | |
|
> I have recently had a long 'support' conversation with virgin.net
> regarding
> an error message I keep getting when sending a "photo email" using
> Windows
> Live Mail. Virgin are my ISP for the internet and I have email
> addresses with
> them ending virgin.net. The error code is reproduced below:
> An unknown error has occurred.
>
> Subject 'xxxxxxxxxx'
> Server Error: 554
> Server Response: 554 5.7.1 Requested action not taken: Message was
> spam or
> contained virus
> Server: 'mail.virgin.net'
> Windows Live Mail Error ID: 0x800CCC6F
> Protocol: SMTP
> Port: 25
> Secure(SSL): No
>
> In my discussion with virgin support the conclusion was reached that
> when a
> "photo email" is created there is a stage of "preparing photos" before
> the
> email is placed in the outbox. This would appear to be where the
> problem
> occurs in that some code is added to the photograph for it to be
> identified
> when uploaded to the WLM server (this would make sense as the email
> recipient
> would then click on the thumbnail image in the email to download the
> hi-res
> image from the server). It seems that virgin.net & maybe some other
> ISPs see
> this embedded code as possibly malicious and therefore reject the
> email with
> the error message above.
> Some work needs to be done here. Has anyone else experienced the same
> problem and, more importantly have they resolved the issue.
| |
| | |