Summary
The `[VI-1]` block code in email delivery typically indicates an issue with spam filtering or content analysis, most often associated with certain internet service providers (ISPs) and cable companies. Our investigation suggests that this specific error code frequently originates from systems managed by Synchronoss or Synacor, which provide email infrastructure and filtering services to various regional ISPs. While the `ecelerity` banner might appear in bounce messages, this refers to the Message Transfer Agent (MTA) framework and not the specific content filter responsible for the `[VI-1]` flag itself.
Key findings
- Error code origin: The `[VI-1]` email block code is commonly observed when sending to domains handled by various cable companies and regional ISPs, including Optimum, Windstream, and CenturyLink.
- Primary suspects: The underlying filtering system generating `[VI-1]` is strongly linked to either Synacor or Synchronoss, who are major providers of email platforms for smaller ISPs. Although the exact filter isn't always disclosed, their infrastructure is consistently present.
- MTA vs. filter: While `ecelerity` (Momentum/MessageSystems) often appears in the mail server banner, it refers to the Mail Transfer Agent, not the specific content filter that issues the `[VI-1]` block. Filters integrate with the MTA.
- Vade Secure possibility: Some speculate the 'V' in `[VI-1]` could refer to Vade Secure, an anti-spam and anti-phishing solution. However, other Vade-related blocks (like those from Earthlink) do not typically include `[VI-1]`, suggesting it might be a unique Synacor/Synchronoss implementation if Vade is involved.
- Filtering complexity: Mailbox providers (MBPs) employ a combination of techniques, including keyword matching, sender reputation analysis, and machine learning, to filter emails, as described by Cynet. Pinpointing the exact reason for a `[VI-1]` block requires detailed investigation.
Key considerations
- Monitoring bounce messages: Pay close attention to the full bounce message. The error code `[VI-1]` is a key indicator, but additional context (like machine names such as `sync.lan`) can help identify the responsible system.
- Understanding MX records: Classifying email issues by the Mail Exchanger (MX) record of the receiving domain, rather than just the domain itself, provides a more accurate picture of which underlying infrastructure (like Synacor's) is causing the block.
- Deliverability impact: When multiple seemingly unrelated domains experience similar blocking issues (e.g., all showing `[VI-1]`), it often indicates a problem with a shared underlying filter or a common infrastructure provider, not disparate problems at each individual domain. This is critical for understanding email deliverability issues.
- ISP-specific variations: Even within the same parent company (e.g., Charter's `charter.net` vs. `rr.com`), different MX records and filtering platforms may be in use, leading to varied blocking behaviors.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often encounter cryptic bounce messages that hinder their campaigns. When faced with specific error codes like `[VI-1]`, marketers actively seek information and shared experiences to pinpoint the cause and responsible entity. Their discussions highlight the challenges of identifying the precise filtering mechanism, especially when multiple ISPs or cable companies are involved and their infrastructure changes over time.
Key opinions
- MX record volatility: Marketers frequently note that major ISPs (like Optonline and Charter) can change their MX records without extensive public announcements, which directly impacts their ability to classify and troubleshoot delivery issues.
- Manual classification challenges: Despite automated tools, many marketers resort to manual classification of MX responses to accurately determine if seemingly different domains are actually using the same underlying filter infrastructure.
- Provider confusion: There's often confusion between similar-sounding providers like Synacor and Synchronoss, which adds to the difficulty of diagnosing `[VI-1]` or other network-level blocks.
- Consolidated issues: When multiple clients or domains experience identical block messages, marketers infer that a single, specific filter (or underlying service provider) is the cause, rather than individual problems across many recipients.
Key considerations
- Staying updated on MX changes: Regularly checking passive DNS records or MX history for target domains can help identify infrastructure shifts that might explain new blocking patterns.
- Leveraging community insights: For obscure error codes like `[VI-1]`, community forums and shared experiences can be invaluable in identifying the responsible filter or underlying company. Discussions on platforms like Spiceworks Community highlight the collaborative nature of troubleshooting.
- Understanding filter classifications: It's important to differentiate between MTA messages and specific filter indications. While an `ecelerity` banner indicates the MTA, the actual block reason (like `[VI-1]`) comes from an integrated spam or content filter, which can be provided by a third party. This understanding helps in troubleshooting email blocks.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks indicates they were updating their scripts based on client data, particularly after noticing changes in MX records for major internet service providers. This reflects the dynamic nature of email infrastructure and the need for constant adaptation in monitoring.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks mentions that classifying filters is often a manual process, relying on direct observation of MX responses rather than just the domain name. This manual effort is essential for identifying shared underlying filter inputs when clients report problems across multiple domains.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts continually analyze the intricate workings of email filters and blocklists to help senders navigate complex blocking scenarios. Their insights often delve into the technical underpinnings of various systems, discerning between MTAs and actual filtering solutions. When a specific error code like `[VI-1]` surfaces, experts leverage their deep knowledge of the email ecosystem to identify potential culprits and patterns, aiding in faster resolution.
Key opinions
- MTA identification: Experts confirm that `ecelerity` in a bounce message indicates the MessageSystems/Momentum MTA, clarifying that it's the mail transport software, not necessarily the content filter itself.
- Filter independence: Momentum MTAs allow for the integration of various third-party filters, meaning the presence of `ecelerity` doesn't pinpoint the specific filter causing a block like `[VI-1]`.
- Provider specificities: Even when a provider uses a known filtering solution (e.g., Vade Secure), they may have unique implementations or additional layers of filtering that result in distinct error codes like `[VI-1]`.
- Platform distinctions: For large organizations like Charter, it's common to maintain separate email platforms for different domains (e.g., `charter.net` and `rr.com`), each potentially with its own filtering setup.
Key considerations
- Deciphering bounce codes: Thorough analysis of bounce messages, including seemingly obscure codes like `[VI-1]`, is crucial. These codes often provide the most direct clues about the blocking filter.
- Reputation tracking: Maintaining a strong sender reputation is fundamental, as many filters, including those potentially behind `[VI-1]`, rely heavily on it. This includes proactively monitoring domain reputation.
- Proactive communication: For known corporate users or large senders, direct communication channels with ISPs or postmaster teams (like the AT&T postmaster) can sometimes provide clarification on specific blocking reasons or infrastructure changes.
- Holistic view of filtering: Recognize that email filters operate on a combination of factors including sender reputation, content analysis, and user feedback.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks confirms that `ecelerity` is indeed the MTA (Message Transfer Agent) from MessageSystems, now known as Momentum. This clarifies that while `ecelerity` handles mail transport, it doesn't inherently imply the specific filtering logic.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Email Geeks indicates that different platforms may still be separate, even under a large parent company like Charter. They offer to seek clarification, highlighting the nuanced structure of email infrastructure within large entities.
What the documentation says
Technical documentation and cybersecurity resources shed light on the broad mechanisms by which email filters (or spam filters) operate. While specific obscure error codes like `[VI-1]` are rarely detailed publicly, the documentation explains the various techniques used to detect and prevent unwanted emails. These include sender reputation analysis, content filtering, and blocklist (or blacklist) checks, providing a framework for understanding why an email might be blocked.
Key findings
- Core function: A spam filter's primary goal is to identify and prevent unsolicited, unwanted, or malicious emails from reaching a user's inbox, as defined by TechTarget.
- Blacklist/Blocklist usage: Email filters frequently employ blacklists (or blocklists) to stop emails from known spamming senders. These lists are regularly updated and can be based on IP addresses, domains, or email addresses, as described by Fortinet.
- Combination of techniques: Filters often use multiple techniques concurrently, including keyword matching, sender reputation analysis, and machine learning algorithms, to determine an email's legitimacy.
- Content filtering: Content filtering involves screening specific emails or webpages to block content that contains harmful or unwanted information, according to Fortinet.
Key considerations
- Comprehensive approach: Email filtering is not a single point of failure but a layered defense. A block like `[VI-1]` could be triggered by any of these layers: content, reputation, or specific policy violations.
- Reputation management: Sender reputation is a critical component of most filtering systems. Even if a specific error code isn't directly tied to a public blacklist, a poor reputation can lead to filtering by proprietary systems. For more, see our guide to how email blacklists actually work.
- Dynamic filtering: Filters are constantly evolving, incorporating new data and threat intelligence. A solution that works today might not work tomorrow, necessitating continuous monitoring and adaptation.
Technical article
Documentation from Fortinet explains that blacklist email spam filters operate by preventing emails from senders that have been added to a list of known spammers. These blacklist filters are regularly updated, indicating a dynamic defense mechanism against unwanted mail.
Technical article
Documentation from Cynet states that email filters utilize a combination of techniques, including keyword matching, sender reputation analysis, and machine learning algorithms. This multi-faceted approach aims to comprehensively detect and block malicious or unwanted emails.
Related resources
11 resources
Related pages
How do I contact the AT&T postmaster and what domains are associated with their email filtering?
What filtering methods do Optimum, Windstream, and CenturyLink use for email, and how can I troubleshoot content-related blocks?
Is Proofpoint commonly used for corporate email, and how does it affect webmail deliverability issues like blacklisting?
An in-depth guide to email blocklists
What is an email blacklist and how does it work?
Why your emails are going to spam in 2024 and how to fix it
Email Deliverability Issues: Getting Your Messages to the Inbox in 2025
Which major Mailbox Providers (MBPs) use Cloudmark for spam filtering?
A simple guide to DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
A practical guide to understanding your email domain reputation
