Email from daviesprinting.com flagged as spam (541 5.7.1)

Email from daviesprinting.com flagged as spam (541 5.7.1)

I am the geek for the daviesprinting.com domain. We host our own mail services.

We are getting the error

541 5.7.1 Mail rejected due to antispam policy (in reply to RCPT TO command)

whenever we send to the rochestertennis.com domain which appears to be hosted by zohomail. I am trying to figure out what the issue is so I can correct it. All of the services that I check are coming up clean. This is what I am getting for a digital trail:

  1. <accounting@rochestertennis.com>: host mx2.zohomail.com[XX.XX.XX.XX]
  2. said:
  3.    541 5.7.1 Mail rejected due to antispam policy (in reply to RCPT TO
  4.    command)
  5. Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.daviesprinting.com
  6. X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 1042DA47D69
  7. X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; <USER>@daviesprinting.com
  8. Arrival-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:08:43 -0600 (CST)
  9. Final-Recipient: rfc822; <USER>@rochestertennis.com
  10. Original-Recipient: rfc822;<USER>@rochestertennis.com
  11. Action: failed
  12. Status: 5.7.1
  13. Remote-MTA: dns; mx2.zohomail.com
  14. Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 541 5.7.1 Mail rejected due to antispam policy
Message Header
  1. Return-Path: <USER>@daviesprinting.com>
  2. Received: from authenticated-user (mail.daviesprinting.com =
  3. [XX.XX.XX.XX])
  4.     (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
  5.     (No client certificate requested)
  6.     by mail.daviesprinting.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1042DA47D69
  7.     for <<USER>@rochestertennis.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:08:43 -0600 =
  8. (CST)
  9. DKIM-Signature: v=3D1; a=3Drsa-sha256; c=3Drelaxed/simple; =
  10. d=3Ddaviesprinting.com;
  11.     s=3Dmail; t=3D1643306923;
  12.     bh=3DLZ+HNKIsX8WejdUDNmjqHfZ59bgACJWeJroWmrWwIBw=3D;
  13.     h=3DFrom:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:From;
  14.     b=3DvDJ/xvmVzFPa8s83nQ29wyyEwn7C2bOG8uVeVB7jrGo4yIpzogrmiaAyaz9CgHRZg
  15.      BCgrYWirZ9KNboTekefpD3DOGxcM8XKxYGG52US79Olom1fxeDyKw7NFyywG0W5aI7
  16.      bIL3znXpJD+lecxH0kCtbn471XwMTj1cYqaWblIF/bXLye5dL9gNpQGJVxMKThS2BX
  17.      6+cRZgnUaYn8e0C9Jpr6Xa2CD21nnUFXofAeaY7UWPsGbXWoguujeaMOhRsW3vOffe
  18.      4t7d0s3iqb6+sbpGbNUoOXV/OSGGIEwTsebvaDCTGytU3/ut2Me/Iv3dpJT2IPaooS
  19.      FJVqry/NdFNWA=3D=3D
  20. From: <<USER>@daviesprinting.com>
  21. To: <<USER>@rochestertennis.com>
  22. References: =
  23. <20220127120347EF.DCSML-S000520000.002673140EED@daviesprinting.com>
  24. In-Reply-To: =
  25. <20220127120347EF.DCSML-S000520000.002673140EED@daviesprinting.com>
  26. Subject: FW:=20
  27. Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:08:42 -0600
  28. Message-ID: <010001d813a8$eb3ee230$c1bca690$@daviesprinting.com>
  29. MIME-Version: 1.0
  30. Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
  31.     boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_0101_01D81376.A0A47230"
  32. Thread-Index: AQEdnZZNIVy40xMpU2ukTzidrXqdC63sFmhQ
  33. Content-Language: en-us
Is there more information on why this was rejected?

Thanks!

Tim Rinkel