Floating a fix for email problem
Reader Bill Amatneek sends this open letter to SBC customers. Information not verified, but source is reliable and I saw a similar situation with a Qwest lash-up I have in Washington State.
John, I wonder if you are aware of this:
SBC got the bright idea to block port 25 for all outgoing email to servers other than SBC’s own. If you are using SBC DSL and you notice that you can’t send email, this is the problem. Don’t waste time by calling SBC’s offshored tech support; they’re beyond clueless on this one.
There are two solutions: [The first one can not be implemented on all email clients – ba]
1) Temporary Solution: Switch your outgoing SMTP server from whatever you’re using (smtp.whatever.com) to SBC’s smtp server (smtp.sbcglobal.yahoo.com). Checkmark the “My server requires authentication” and click Settings. Enter your SBC account name — for example: abc@sbcglobal.net and your SBC password, and click Remember Settings.
If you have several computers on servers on the DSL line, just use the same account name abc@sbcglobal.net and password for all of them.
2) Better Solution (but takes longer): Go to http://help.sbcglobal.net/servabuse.php and select Abuse Type = “**Opt Out 25” and type “Please let me opt out of Port 25 blocking.” In 12 hours or so (or longer [apparently MUCH longer – ba] ), SBC will unblock their blocking of your Port 25.
Hang on to this email. SBC is slowly blocking this through their service areas. If you use SBC DSL, you’ll eventually notice that you can’t send email. This info will solve your problem.
What is the reasoning for the block?
Is this their answer to prevent “zombie” computers from being used to send spam?
My ISP (Sympatico) does something similar. I used to use their SMTP server until my ssokolow.com domain’s emails started getting bounced for not coming from ssokolow.com.
Since Sympatico doesn’t provide an opt-out function, I checked with my SMTP provider. It turns out that they also ran an SMTP server on port 2025 for people in my situation.
In some cases, that may be a third option. Check it out if your ISP refuses to let you opt out.
I don’t get how DSL ISPs can get away with this. Phone companies are what’s known as common carriers. A common carrier must carry all content. To contrast, cable companies are not common carriers. They can limit content, e.g., they can choose to carry ESPN but not the Disney Channel.
Considering that DSL uses phone lines, I’m not sure what legal basis they have to block anything, including ports.
My ISP, charter, blocks ports too. But as a cable company, they can get away with it. So I’m stuck.
SBC = Sucks Big
But, it looks like it’s going to be our new MaMa Bell…..a company that had faithful employees, a solid process to integrate new technology, and structure….as opposed to a company that likes to lay-off/fire people at the point where they start to get some retirement accrued, and some seniority…..only to hire them back a few months later, as “new” employees.
….We won’t even talk about new technology…if they can’t make a buck, or pass the costs along to the customers…..ha!
This is good common IT practice. The guy should have been using SBC’s outgoing SMTP server from the beginning.
A server that accepts mail for forwarding from an IP address outside its administrative domain and without any authentication is called an “Open Relay” and can be used by spammers, however temporarily, to disguise the source of their e-mail. Usually such machines crop up because someone installs Sendmail with an old, open configuration. (i.e. runs an e-mail server when they don’t know what they’re doing.)
There may be a few unfortunate souls caught up by this blockage of port 25, but I would wager it will prevent a lot more inconvenience than it will cause, by blocking tons more spam than legitimate e-mails.
Besides which, they give you an opt-out, and there are clear instructions for setting up your Outgoing SMTP server settings to use SBC servers.
For those sending legitimate e-mail with a “From:” address in a different domain (Stephan Sokolow’s problem), it can be a problem.
However, checking that an e-mail’s source server is located in the email address’s domain is not a foolproof way of detecting spam. It can be one of many indications of spam, but it is overzealous to block messages based on that one discrepancy. I have been in a similar situation for years, sending e-mail with a berkeley.edu address from various commercial ISPs, and my mail has never been blocked.
T.C. Moore is very unimaginative if he/she cannot figure out why someone would not want an email address other than the one they get “free” from SBC. Vanity email addresses are quite common and in most cases require that you send outbound via the email server hosting your domain. The SBC blocking is a big problem because it is so intrusive. I have a client that is trying to get the opt out in place right now. From what I understand, if a residential user gets a business account, the problem goes away. Does anyone know if this is true?
The thing that irritates me the most, is to hear that supposedly SBC first announced this back in September ’04 in a newsletter. I certainly did not see a September newsletter with any sort of announcement. I feel even sillier since I waited a couple days to get a response from my domain host through which I was both receiving and sending email via smtp.my-domain.com…they didn’t get back to me no doubt since it wasn’t a problem on their end. However, I did finally get someone on the phone who immediately pointed me to the page on SBC/Yahoo describing the solution with another pointer to the opt-out form. But what is it….6 of one half dozen…you get the idea…is it better to opt-out of the port 25 filter or just go ahead and use the sbc outgoing mail server.
Hey Guyz
I belong to Afghanistan / Pakistan i want to have a @SBCGLOBAL.NET Email address .
Is it posibble, if Yes How?
Thanks
Naveed Saeed
If you’re in a bind and have a VPN set up, you can log into that. That will get you around the port 25 block as long as you’re logged in.
SBC DSL customers are probably saving a lot of money per month over other ISP solutions. Use some of the fat from that savings to buy a commercial e-mail solution (usually you get this bundled with $5/month web hosting). The service will be better, you can choose encrypted/non-encrypted, and the majority of them offer alternative ports (port 587 in my case) that are not a part of this blockage. We need good anti-spam measures in the internet community.
Yours,
Yes Man.