Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon Email Restrictions

timothy posted about 13 years ago | from the there-can-be-only-one-email-address dept.

Privacy 239

CodeMonkey5 writes: "The following excerpt is from a Verizon email sent to all Verizon customers regarding the use of their SMTP servers. The gist of it is that if you are using an email address other than that of Verizon in the 'From' field, you cannot use their SMTP servers. '...If you are sending email using an email address other than one provided by Verizon Online, this message affects you. Effective, August 8, 2001, you will no longer be able to send email from any email address other than the one provided by Verizon Online (this includes privately branded domains and secondary ISP accounts). We are taking this action as a result of our continuing efforts to improve the quality and reliability of Verizon's mail system and is one of several steps to help reduce spam. The effect of this change is that Verizon Online email will no longer support sending email from other ISP accounts or privately branded domains that are not hosted by Verizon Online ...'"

cancel ×

239 comments

ssh + shell account + pine = hahahaha (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#70517)

Let them try and stop me! Silly phone companies!

Verizon online?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#70518)

Verizon online, what's that, the latest online game?

Re:This really isn't so bad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#70519)

If you have questions about how POP-BEFORE-SMTP works just search google or
email me offline

I unplugged my modem and tried to send you an e-mail, but it didn't work...

I guess I had the wrong From: field in the header...

It is a BIG deal. You are missing the big picture (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#70520)

Our company has our own mail servers, etc which is hosted by on a dedicated T1(no restrictions, no problems as we control spam relaying on our own smtp servers). Our sales reps use verizon for remote access. Currently they just dial up and send mail as user@ourdomain.com with no problems to our mail server or to verizons. Here is the BIG problem with the implementation Verizon plans... Our sales reps will be forced to use a verizon email address when connecting up remotely, since they are forcing from domain checking and will block outgoing smtp to other servers to help stop spam. Blocking outgoing smtp to other non verizon smtp servers is acceptable, forcing email to go through their servers. That will allow verizon to have a log of all outgoing port 25 email from their network. As long as verizons mail servers do not force from addresses to be from their domain it is ok. Doing both just shows that the managers of verizon need some lessons on smtp server administration, as they appearantly do not know how BIG of a deal this really is to their customers. We have 2 choices look for another service provider(we have changed twice becuase of this so far), or setup our own dialup accounts which costs quite a bit more for the 800 service, etc).

Re:This really isn't so bad. (1)

davidu (18) | about 13 years ago | (#70523)

you should really complain to your ISP.

That's fsckin' lame for it not to work everytime.

-davidu

Re:This really isn't so bad. (2)

davidu (18) | about 13 years ago | (#70524)


I unplugged my modem and tried to send you an e-mail, but it didn't work...

Errr....maybe I shoulda written "offlist"...

Have you tried to contact me via carrier pigeons?

-davidu

Re:This really isn't so bad. (2)

davidu (18) | about 13 years ago | (#70525)

Actually your wrong.

Verio [verio.com] runs pop-before-smtp across their ENTIRE network. It is easy to setup, pop-before-smtp done properly DOES work, as does SMTP-AUTH.

-davidu

This really isn't so bad. (3)

davidu (18) | about 13 years ago | (#70526)


1) They are their servers and they really can enforce policies like this. While this really has nothing to do with spam they do have the right to make such a policy.

2) Most people these days use POP-BEFORE-SMTP or SMTP-AUTH in order to use a remote smtp server. It is a much better system because it allows people to actually send mail from THEIR server as opposed to relaying through their ISP's and having that in the headers.
For Security reasons alone I don't like my ISPs mail server in my headers and my mail server strips my IP from the outbound mail.

Again, this just really isn't that big of a deal, plus anyone on verizon's net can just run an SMTP server of their own and let other verizon users relay off of it. just create www.verizonrelay.com or something.

If you have questions about how POP-BEFORE-SMTP works just search google or email me offline, it really is a painless and easy system that all your remote users will love.


-davidu

Earthlink is configured this way (1)

Fiznarp (233) | about 13 years ago | (#70527)

My DSL link through Earthlink will not allow me to use anything but earthlink.com as a sending domain.

They also go as far as to block port 25 outbound to keep customers from using other mail relays.

Fiznarp

I don't see a problem... (1)

farrellj (563) | about 13 years ago | (#70528)

I guess it only affects Windows users who have to use their ISP's smtp host to send mail...

That is, if you have an email account that is not the one in their domain, and you want your replies to go to it, you can't do it now...only if you are using windows. Unless they have a filtering firewall that is between their customers and the net...but I don't think they are *that*stupid.

ttyl
Farrell

Re:From us that host domains (2)

mattdm (1931) | about 13 years ago | (#70532)

pair.net would have the same problem. The issues isn't that they don't provide a mail relay -- it's that they don't provide a mail relay that can be used directly by Verizon customers. This completely reasonable -- otherwise (without an authentication scheme) any Verizon customer could relay spam through their server.

Obviously, there are authentication schemes that can work around this (as suggested elsewhere in this message), but they're nonstandard and a pain for both the ISP and for the customers.

Why allowing local relaying can still be bad (2)

Old Man Kensey (5209) | about 13 years ago | (#70537)

sourcehunter wrote:

I can understand blocking outgoing port 25 on your network except for your mail server and thus assuring that all mail is routed through the ISP's mail server - Mindspring/Earthlink has been doing this for quite a while! But not relaying mail for your local users (regardless of from address) breaks one of the core reasons for having LOCAL mail servers. What the hell else are people going to do? Most third partys' mail servers are locked down to allow local relay only (as well they should be!). Yeah there are a few open relays out there, but everyone won't be able to find one. I for one won't be opening up my server!

The problem with allowing random-relay from local IPs is that your customers can still spam through your mailservers while disguising their address. You can blast a lot of spam even through a 28.8 connection before you get caught.

I remember when MindSpring turned off port 25 access to the outside world -- a lot of their customers made the same complaints I'm seeing here. Turning off outbound 25 is actually a much more draconian measure than this -- it still allows legitimate access to third-party SMTP servers that allow it.

The bottom line is, this is understandable and I see it all the time.

only ISP in town (1)

KyleCordes (10679) | about 13 years ago | (#70543)

[only ISP in town]

In some areas, Verizon is the cable modem ISP and that is the only broadband ISP available. So for some people, they are essentially the only game in town.

Re:Real motive a disincentive from changing ISPs? (1)

KyleCordes (10679) | about 13 years ago | (#70544)

[more locked into not switching ISP's ]

This strikes me as a likely real motivation for this policy...

[If I was using verizon I would consider strongly switching ISP's right away.]

In some areas Verizon is the cable modem ISP and the only available two-way residential broadband.

This is actually a BIG restriction (2)

KyleCordes (10679) | about 13 years ago | (#70545)

Some of the early posters confused open relaying with normal SMTP behaviour and normal ISP behaviour.

For example, I have my own domain, kylecordes.com. It's hosted by an internet hosting provider. I receive email there.

My ISP for internet access is Speakeasy. I send email through them, but that email is marked *from* my email address, which is @kylecordes.com. Speakeasy does not force me to have any email I send through them marked @speakeasy.net.

Speakeasy is not an open relay; they are correctly handling outgoing SMTP only for their own customers (including me). They know it's me because I connect through their network.

Were I a Verizon customer, I would be unhappy. I don't wish to use an @verizon email address... that's why I got my own domain name.

The Verizon policy looks like a way to try to force their branding onto all of their customers' email address.

Re:Real motive a disincentive from changing ISPs? (2)

KyleCordes (10679) | about 13 years ago | (#70546)

[Paying customers who are unaware of the benefits
provided by Reply-To: headers are also very annoying.]

Sending out email with a From: that lists a residential throwaway ISP mail account and only the Reply-to: lists your real, long-term, paid-for-the-domain email account, looks rather unprofessional. Some mail clients either don't handle Reply-to very well.

Re:That is a misinterpretation. (2)

KyleCordes (10679) | about 13 years ago | (#70547)

[hosted your domain through Verizon]

How dare I wish to:

* already have hosting arrange somewhere else and not want to switch

* want to buy a flavor of hosting that Verizon does not offer

* Have more than one ISP for whatever reason... obviously at most one can be the same place I host my domain.

* etc.

[Verizon doesn't want to be relaying mail for non-customer domains]

Indeed they don't.

It would make a lot more sense, though if they were interested in relaying mail only for their *customers* regardless of domain, rather than only for *customer domains* per se. My ISP (which is not Verizon) has the desired behaviour, for example.

[don't think this qualifies as a "Your rights online"]

Agreed. But it does seem like a customer-hostile policy.

Re:only ISP in town (1)

Artemis (14122) | about 13 years ago | (#70552)

Yes, because you must have broadband, it's an essential right not to have at least two broadband providers to choose from. Forgive me, I'm just venting, still no broadband at all in what equates to Mayberry, Michigan.

Uhhh.. how's this a problem? (1)

dee^lOts (15121) | about 13 years ago | (#70553)

Isn't this WHAT everyone wants? No relaying of emails through their servers??

Re:Translation: (1)

_Stryker (15742) | about 13 years ago | (#70555)

They aren't restricting service to their valid customers. They are blocking SPAM mostly, by not allowing relaying. If you have a vanity domain at another ISP, you should be using that ISP to send your vanity email anyway, so you shouldn't be using Verizon's mail servers.

Look at it this way. You have a domain name hosted by XYZHostingCompany.com, but you connect to the internet from xyzISP.com. You have the domain myDomain.com and the email address me@myDomain.com. XYZHostingCompany.com has a special relaying server setup for its clients at relay.XYZHostingCompany.com, xyzISP.com SHOULD NOT be letting you send mail as me@myDomain.com because they don't have anything to do with that domain, if they let that domain through, they would basically be letting everything through, which means they would be used to send lots and lots of SPAM (which would, of course, degrade the level of service for their valid clients). So, you should really be sending your email through relay.XYZHostingCompany.com. And, in a perfect world, XYZHostingCompany has properly setup their relay box to only relay mail from the domains that it is hosting.
---

Re:From us that host domains (1)

_Stryker (15742) | about 13 years ago | (#70556)

How is this informative? Basically what you have here is a small ISP that has a less than useful service for their users. How can you provide hosting and NOT provide a mail relay for your customers??? If I were your customer I would be looking for another hosting company ASAP. There are plenty of them out there that offer great service and good pricing and obviously have a lot more resources and expertise than your small shop. One that I highly recommend is pair.net.
---

Move on, nothing to see here. (2)

_Stryker (15742) | about 13 years ago | (#70559)

So what is the problem? It sounds like to me that they are actually tightening up their mail servers and not allowing relaying. Isn't this the exact thing that we say all ISPs should be doing? This measure doesn't stop you from sending your own email from your own mail server.

---

Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (2)

_Stryker (15742) | about 13 years ago | (#70560)

If you are using a web hosting company that has no provision for sending mail, they you have made a poor choice of hosting companies. Any decent hosting company will have an SMTP server setup for the companies they host. There are different ways of allowing the mail to be relayed, but probably the most common these days is POP before SMTP, which means you have to check your POP mail before you can send anything via SMTP. Another popular solution is SMTP AUTH.
---

User authentication and limitations to From (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 13 years ago | (#70564)

The problem with requiring the 'From' field to contain an address from the Verizon domain is that every spammer know how to hack a 'From' field. This now means that we will be having a lot more spam apparently originating from the 'Verizon' domain.

The better approach is to use user authentication at the e-mail server. I have come across a fair number of SMTP servers that require you to authenticate yourself, preferbly with the help of SSL, before you can send your e-mail through them. Couple this with IP verification, as Verizon should know which IP ranges they own, it make it would very difficult for a spammer to relay e-mail via their server.

Now if only more e-mail clients supported SSL.

From us that host domains (5)

doon (23278) | about 13 years ago | (#70571)

We are a small ISP and host domains and for some of the business in the area. We recently had a couple of them come to us with this problem. We don't want to install pop before smtp at this moment as we are rebuilding our datacenter. Since verizon dsl doesn't even offer static ip's to it's customers, we have 2 choices, tell the customer to use their verizon mail address and their @domainname address in the reply to field. Or us open up our mail server to accept mail from a /22. When talking to verizon they told our customer that they should just host with them. Spam my ass. -doon

Re:Translation: (2)

PigleT (28894) | about 13 years ago | (#70574)

> they can now improve service by restricting
> service?

Sounds like it. Ever heard of `relay'ing? It's not hard. It means you send email from/to a non-local domain through a server. It's a good way to increase the amount of spam, to allow relaying....
My initial reactions are along the lines of `what's this doing here? closing down an open relay is a damned good thing!'.

PS 2+2=4. This is not rocket-science.


~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

Re:Why is this important? Because... (1)

VP (32928) | about 13 years ago | (#70576)

This is entirely Verizon's fault, and not your University's fault. Your university's approach is sensible, Verizon's is aiming to force its customers to host their domains with them...

Re:Annoying, but a reasonable policy to enforce. (1)

VP (32928) | about 13 years ago | (#70577)

Let me get this straight - this measure will prevent Verizon's customers from forging their From: field when sending e-mail while using Verizon as an ISP? You are telling me Verizon doesn't know their customer's IP address when they connect to the SMTP server, or if they know it, that Verizon cannot enforce their AUP based on that information? They cannot detect an IP address sending hundreds of e-mails per second?

This has very little to do with spam prevention, and a lot to do with preventing Verizon's customers from using other hosting companies...

Re:Non-Issue (1)

VP (32928) | about 13 years ago | (#70578)

Please, let us know what you think once Verizon blocks port 25 on your own mail server (as Earthlink already does)...

Re:Translation: (2)

VP (32928) | about 13 years ago | (#70580)

Wrong.

You have a domain name hosted by XYZHostingCompany.com, but you connect to the internet from xyzISP.com. You have the domain myDomain.com and the email address me@myDomain.com.

Yep, and if I connect to the internet through xyzISP.com, they can confirm that I am a legitimate customer, since they gave me the IP address. This is not relaying! The From: address has nothing to do with stopping relaying.

XYZHostingCompany.com has a special relaying server setup for its clients at relay.XYZHostingCompany.com

Many hosting companies don't have a special relaying server. Besides, doesn't this mean that a spammer with forged From: address has just found an open-relay server?

xyzISP.com SHOULD NOT be letting you send mail as me@myDomain.com because they don't have anything to do with that domain, if they let that domain through, they would basically be letting everything through, which means they would be used to send lots and lots of SPAM (which would, of course, degrade the level of service for their valid clients).

This is BS. The ISP assigns the IP address to their customers, and don't allow anyone from an invalid IP address to connect to their SMTP servers. They don't have to rely on the domain of the From: field to stop relaying...

Wrong Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (3)

VP (32928) | about 13 years ago | (#70581)

If this were to stop using their SMTP servers when you are not connected to the internet through Verizon Online, then this will be indeed OK. However, it sounds like even if you are dialed into the Verizon system, or connected via DSL, they are trying to prevent you from using their SMTP server, only because you are using an e-mail address from a domain not hosted by Verizon.

Usually an SMTP server is provided by your ISP, since you are part of their network when you are connected to their service, and they can contlrol who uses the SMTP servers based on IP address. POP and IMAP servers can be provided from any place. If you have your own domain, the hosting provider usually provides a pop server, so that you can have e-mail going to your domain.

There is no technical reason behind this decision, only an attempt to force the Verizon customers to host their domains with Verizon.

Re:This isn't so bad... (1)

penguinboy (35085) | about 13 years ago | (#70584)

You have to wonder if an ISP will ever try to implement both the From: field restriction and the blocking of port 25, all in the name of "preventing spam..."

Earthlink already did, months ago.

Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (2)

penguinboy (35085) | about 13 years ago | (#70586)

1. It's annoying for people who legitimately want to use a different return address. For example, I have Earthlink and I've never used the email address they provided. That has received tons of spam from day one and Earthlink doesn't have the same sort of filtering you can get elsewhere.

2. Actually, many ISPs *are* preventing you from running your own mail servers. Earthlink and Mindspring started this a long time ago - you can't connect to port 25 on any machine besides their own mail servers. I had to set up a mail server elsewhere on the net and create a tunnel from my network to it to get my functionality back. Earthlink/Mindspring also did the 'our email address only' thing quite some time ago.

Re:Not sure what to think (2)

macdaddy (38372) | about 13 years ago | (#70601)

I haven't set up my RR account (kscable) either. I don't even use their DNS. After the last bad case of router flap I almost dropped their sorry asses. Now if they blocked my outbound tcp/25 connections and forced me to use their SMTP *and* forced me to only use a rr.com address, I'd tell them to -- ---- ---------- and tunnel from my firewall to my server (I should probably do that anyways, tell them off and tunnel).

--

no, this is different (1)

zzzeek (43830) | about 13 years ago | (#70607)

I have earthlink as well, and yes, they will not let you connect to port 25 on any host besides theirs. They are blocking the sending of spam using their network in any way, not just smtp relaying. Now THAT policy sucks. The Verizon thing only refers to what kind of data you send to their smtp servers.

It would be much appreciated if anyone can point me to an official mention of earthlink's policy, since I have observed it but could find nothing about it on their site or within their tech support section.

Re:This is actually a BIG restriction (2)

M-G (44998) | about 13 years ago | (#70608)

Speakeasy is not an open relay; they are correctly handling outgoing SMTP only for their own customers (including me). They know it's me because I connect through their network.

Exactly! Once the person is authenticated through the ISP's network, the ISP knows who they are. If a bunch of bulk traffic goes through their servers, with a non-Verizon From: address, they should be able to figure out what customer it came from, and term them for AUP violations.

This strikes me more as a corporate strategy to attempt to lock in users and get Verizon's name broader exposure via e-mail addresses than any kind of security or anti-spam tool.

Why is this in Your Rights? (2)

Kwil (53679) | about 13 years ago | (#70611)

I don't get it.. an ISP says if you want to send mail through us, it has to be mail FROM us, and this is somehow construed as restricting our rights?

If it was the only ISP in town, maybe, but as it is, I don't see the big deal. It's not like my normal web-mail services don't have provision for sending something directly from them.

A pain? Sure. But lets reserve our energies for the real battles.

That causes MORE problems (3)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 13 years ago | (#70613)

BellSouth requires the domain you use in the from field to resolve to a valid domain, which seems to be a much better solution than just requiring you to use their domain.

That just means the spammers will have to masquerade as a VALID domain - and some poor sysop who DIDN'T have anything to do with the spam will catch hell.

More Verizon incompetence. (2)

ktakki (64573) | about 13 years ago | (#70614)

As a Verizon victim...err, customer, this would affect me as well. Except I stopped using their SMTP server when it started choking on my outgoing mail (hanging in the middle of DATA).

And though I've never used my bellatlantic.net address ever, it somehow manages to receive about ten pieces of spam each day, starting with the very first day my DSL went live.

Then there's the news swerver, which fell down and went boom a couple of weeks ago (collateral damage from the Hipcrime floods?). Instead of rebuilding the spool, they just started from scratch.

Their Tier 2 techs are pretty clueful, but Tier 1 tech support is staffed by some human-fish hybrid.

k.


--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

Might drive hosting revenues... (2)

q2k (67077) | about 13 years ago | (#70615)

Sounds like an attempt to increase hosting revenues to me. I imagine a lot of people use Verizon for their ISP but host their domains elsewhere as the major ISP's hosting prices are usually on the high side. Of course, if you own your domain name - what ISP you are using is transparent more or less so I would think changing ISP's will be easier than moving your domain to Verizon.

Re:This is not their right, ethically (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 13 years ago | (#70616)

The maples scream "Opression," and the oaks just shake their heads.

Re:And the point is? (1)

graxrmelg (71438) | about 13 years ago | (#70617)

Meanwhile, you wouldn't be able to send anything addressed as being from your gnu.org email address.

?

Really. Reply-To: doesn't work anymore?

"Reply-To:" ne "From:". The whole point of having your own address is that you don't have to use the ISP's address at all. "Reply-To:" doesn't hide the "From:" address in any way, and requires the cooperation of the replier and their e-mail client.

This step does nothing to prevent spam, since the spammers don't care what their "From:" addresses are. The only ones inconvenienced are legitimate users.

Re:Translation: (2)

intuition (74209) | about 13 years ago | (#70618)

These are not an open mail relays. Only verizon customers can acess the verizon mail relays. Just because verizon customers can send emails that purport to be from a non-local domain to a non-local domain does not make them open relays.

Again, even with this policy I can just as easily spam you with a nobody@verizon.net and it would be just as easy or hard for verizon to track me down if i used nobody@nobody.net

This is not their right, ethically (4)

intuition (74209) | about 13 years ago | (#70619)

I am tired of corporations changing the rules of the game half-way through. I and many other college students in Boston use DSL and also use our @youruniversity.edu addresses. Because most universities do not have SMTP-AUTH servers - this would effectively prevent us from using our @edu addresses. This will not "reduce spam" and it will not make their "email" more reliable. Tell me how forcing me to use Verizon's email servers rather than ones of my own choosing is more reliable. This combined with the fact that Verizon can't operate any IP services reliably (in my experience) makes it seem even more asinine. This will not reduce spam as I can spam you just as easily through the Verizon smtp with nobody@nowhere.com as I can with nobody@verizon.net. Both are equally difficult or easy to trace to the origin "spamming" customer.

The reasons Verizon provides for doing this are a farce. I am sure the real reasons such as increased customer retention when locked into an email address, increased exposure to email recipients of the verizon.net domain name, etc. are the _real_ reasons for this corporate act of oppression.

Use reply-to (1)

neonstz (79215) | about 13 years ago | (#70621)

What's the problem? Just use reply-to to get replies to another account.

So? (1)

szcx (81006) | about 13 years ago | (#70622)

They're not allowing me to relay anymore? Cocksuckers! How am I supposed to spam^H^H^H^Hinform the world with news of my amazing new product, the Slashdot Overreact-O-Tron 6000?

I think a boycott is in order, somebody set us up the petition!

Sigh...

Re:And the point is? (2)

LocalYokel (85558) | about 13 years ago | (#70626)

It doesn't prevent spam at all -- if anything, it's an inconvenience. To spam on Verizon's servers, all the one has to do is forge an @verizon.com email address. Meanwhile, you wouldn't be able to send anything addressed as being from your gnu.org email address.

--

And the point is? (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | about 13 years ago | (#70627)

Yes, so what. This is very common and done to prevent spam.

What, do trolls now make frontpage /. news?

PS: Nice demonstration of utter cluelessness, tho.

Re:Don't see what good this will do... (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | about 13 years ago | (#70628)

BellSouth requires the domain you use in the
from field to resolve to a valid domain, which
seems to be a much better solution than just
requiring you to use their domain.

Uhm. There is no one solution to spam reduction. Both are valid.

And what you described isn't the only thing BellSouth.net does to reduce spam.

Re:Real motive a disincentive from changing ISPs? (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | about 13 years ago | (#70629)

Although in principal I'm all for reducing
spam,

Cool.

refusing paying customers the ability
to send mail that is returnable to the
account they choose would be very annoying.

Paying customers who are unaware of the benefits
provided by Reply-To: headers are also very annoying.

Point?

Most people don't like to use their ISP
provided email addr because if people come
to know them by that addr, [store it in their
address book, rolodex, etc], then the customer
is more locked into not switching ISP's
because they would then lose that address.

Oh, come on. Do you work in marketing? Enter the conspiracy theory. ISP prevent spam to restrict customers freedom of choice. WHAT?!

That's it! This is a capitalist exploitation of the working class!

Have you asked Mully or Scully about this? You should. Skinner is probably already on this anyway.

*sigh*

"Morons, your bus is leaving!"

Re:And the point is? (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | about 13 years ago | (#70630)

It doesn't prevent spam at all -- if
anything, it's an inconvenience. To spam on
Verizon's servers, all the one has to do is
forge an @verizon.com email address.

Have you actually tried that or have other knowledge of it being used as the only spam control "feature"? It does help make things a bit more cumbersome for those trying to spam others. And that's all spam control is about, making it more difficult. There is no winning.

I never said anything about it being equal to 42.

Meanwhile, you wouldn't be able to send anything addressed as being from your gnu.org email address.

?

Really. Reply-To: doesn't work anymore? Fact remains, this was a classic frontpage /. troll. Mindspring/Earthlink.net and many many others have been doing this for years.

no it's not. (Re:no, this is different) (1)

ckuhtz (87644) | about 13 years ago | (#70631)

If you have earthlink, cutie smartypants, try sending something thru mindspring/earthlink's servers without @mindspring.com on it. You're wrong, pal.

Wow, the cluetrain is just dropping smarty folks left and right today. Time to call the NTSB. Hurry!

PS: If you're actually ( DOH! ) an Earthlink subscriber, you could always call their fabulous customer support and ask them. Nice troll, tho.

this is a good idea... (1)

jbridge21 (90597) | about 13 years ago | (#70632)

I always use localhost for outgoing mail anyway. It saves a lot of hassle.
-----

Annoying, but a reasonable policy to enforce. (5)

Nonesuch (90847) | about 13 years ago | (#70635)

This isn't really a question of 'relaying' mail through their servers, it's more a question of preventing users on Verizon's network from forging the SMTP 'From' address, when sending outgoing mail through Verizon's mail hosts. This is a reasonable policy to enforce.

It prevents forgery, but also prevents users from using other legitimate email addresses as the sender- since there is no way for Verizon to know an address is legitimate, except for the one address they've assigned to the customer.

There's another tactic that some ISPs are using to prevent spamming- blocking or redirecting end-user connections to any port 25 at any remote host except for the ISPs own mail servers. If Verizon were to combine their anti-forgery rule with a 'you must use our mail hosts' rule, that would be a serious inconvenience to legitimate users.

There is a solution.

If you absolutely must send mail with the 'From' being a domain other than your ISP, see if the actual owner of the domain will set up a POPmail server with 'XTEND XMIT' support, allowing you to send out your mail from an authenticated POP session. Note that this is entirely different from the 'pre-authenticating SMTP relay access' technique that was found to be buggy recently.

References? (2)

TomatoMan (93630) | about 13 years ago | (#70638)

If you absolutely must send mail with the 'From' being a domain other than your ISP, see if the actual owner of the domain will set up a POPmail server with 'XTEND XMIT' support, allowing you to send out your mail from an authenticated POP session. Note that this is entirely different from the 'pre-authenticating SMTP relay access' technique that was found to be buggy recently.

Do you have any references for XTEND XMIT, or an explanation of the bugs in pre-authenticating SMTP? A google search I just ran didn't turn up very much.


TomatoMan

Non-Issue (5)

bill.sheehan (93856) | about 13 years ago | (#70639)

I'm a Verizon DSL customer, and this is an utter non-issue. For ~ $25/year, I have my own domain through a DDNS provider and I just run my own mail server. No sweat, and a good deal more reliable than Verizon's has been over the past year.

For the students who are suffering because they can no longer claim to be @foobar.edu when sending through @verizon.net, may I suggest a quick look at RFC2822 [ohio-state.edu] ? Mail programs don't respond to the "From" address, they respond to the "Reply-To" address.

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Monopoly Telcos Hurt Local ISPs, Again. (1)

wulfhere (94308) | about 13 years ago | (#70640)

We are also a local ISP, and this is going to put a big strain on us and some of our webhosting customers. SPAM, indeed. This is not going to harm spammers, because they use open relays anyway. All this does is inconvenience their DSL customers so that Verizon can steal their webhosting as well. And pop-before-smtp is still a pain in the tuckus for broken clients that send mail first.

Relay mail (1)

zer0vector (94679) | about 13 years ago | (#70641)

I used to work tech support for an ISP and I remember when we switched over to not allowing relay mail through our smtp servers. We were inundated with calls, mostly from people who wanted to check and send mail from their computers at work (not logged into us), but were not able to. While it does help reduce spam (our data showed 25% of mail through our server beforehand was not from our customers) it really is an inconvenience for some people.

Why is this important? Because... (2)

friedegg (96310) | about 13 years ago | (#70642)

My university decided they wanted to stop spam, so they restricted smtp to accounts within their local network. If you're not on campus, or on the handful of dialup accounts, you can not use their server to send email. But, they say, you can use your ISP to send email! Just set your from address to your university address, and no one you're writing to will know the difference. However, that won't work now thanks to Verizona's new policy.

Is this entirely Verizon's fault? No. Is this entirely my university's fault? No. But who gets hurt? The users. In both cases, the person paying for the service. Yes, there are ways around it, but not ways the average user will know or should have to go to the trouble of.

So, do not simply think this is a non-issue.

Just use your own relay. (1)

Grinch (112916) | about 13 years ago | (#70650)

iMac: $799.00
OS/X: $129.00
Sendmail: Free

Uncensored email: Priceless.

Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (3)

wizman (116087) | about 13 years ago | (#70651)

No... You can block relaying by limiting based on IP address. If they were to prevent relaying simply by the from field, anyone in the world could spam through their servers simply by tacking @verizon.com or whatever to a bogus e-mail address. Many people have third party web hosting companies for their domains and use their ISP's e-mail servers for outgoing. This is going to be a big problem, as most web hosts don't allow relaying either.

Re:From us that host domains (5)

slamb (119285) | about 13 years ago | (#70653)

You're missing an option: SASL authentication. My Postfix mailserver is configured to use this and it works out fairly well. The major clients (Outlook, etc) seem to have support for it.

It's configured like this:

smtp_client_restrictions =
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_unknown_client,
reject_maps_rbl,
permit
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
check_recipient_access
hash:/usr/local/etc/postfix/access,
permit_mynetworks,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
permit_auth_destination,
reject

The client section allows my networks (you'd put in localhost and your dialup links) and SASL authenticated people, without checking DNS or the RBL (which is important if you are using the DUL; otherwise their machine may be listed and denied).

The recipient section allows SASL-authenticated people to send to addresses other than the auth_destination ones - in other words, to relay.

So, unless I'm missing something (like a big mail client that doesn't support SASL at all), there's a pretty good way for you and people like you to still provide supplementary addresses. And I think this move really will cut down on spam.

That is a misinterpretation. (2)

1nt3lx (124618) | about 13 years ago | (#70658)

If you were a customer of Verizon and hosted your domain through Verizon then you would be able to send and receive e-mail to your domain.

Verizon doesn't want to be relaying mail for non-customer domains. Meaning, if I host slashdotsucks.com with Verizion, I can send and receive e-mail from timothy.should.not.post@slashdotsucks.com. However, if I was a Verizon customer, but hosted slashdotsucks.com with another company they would not allow me to send e-mail from timothy.should.not.post@slashdotsucks.com through their servers.

I thought this was standard configuration anyway. I am a Verizon Online subscriber but I use my e-mail services through work.

I don't think this qualifies as a "Your rights online" type of thing, it probably should have been rejected.

I just realized I'm going to receive negative moderation points for saying slashdotsucks.com. Slashdot doesn't suck, this is an unusually terrible story and it is something which really didn't need to be posted. Perhaps timothy should join JonKatz on my Blocked Editors list. I've already got SlashBack blocked.

Re:This is not their right, ethically (2)

misheast (135074) | about 13 years ago | (#70665)

No, if your university adopted this same policy, it would only mean that you could not use your @yourdomain.com addresses with their smtp servers. If you want to use @yourdomain email addresses, you would have to use @yourdomain's smtp servers. I don't see why it is their responsibility to relay mail that isn't also hosted by them. If you want ot use a secondary mail account, you should provide a secondary smtp server.

So what? (1)

truesaer (135079) | about 13 years ago | (#70666)

This is the same thing that Yahoo mail and many other email providers do. I have my email program set up to check around 10 addresses, and when I compose a message I choose which account to send it under. It then sends it through that account.... Therefore, it always matches the email address to the correct account.
If you have some specific reason to have different return addresses, like for customer service or something, just get your own host. This is for the best.

Re:User authentication and limitations to From (1)

buss_error (142273) | about 13 years ago | (#70669)

every spammer know[s] how to hack a 'From' field

Not really a hack when it's something you just put in as any other form of input field.

I know, picky, picky.

One thing that seems to cut down quite a bit of spam for me it so scan for my first name in the e-mail body. Not there and it gets sent to a HOLD area.

I've been able to get from about 50+ spams a day down to about 3 by vicious persual of the spammer. I once was able to track one back by looking at my firewall logs after a ping storm. Good thing too, because I had lost his trail until he got stupid and sent another e-mail saying he was going to do a "take down" on my line. HA!

Real motive a disincentive from changing ISPs? (5)

sanemind (155251) | about 13 years ago | (#70672)

Although in principal I'm all for reducing spam, refusing paying customers the ability to send mail that is returnable to the account they choose would be very annoying. Most people don't like to use their ISP provided email addr because if people come to know them by that addr, [store it in their address book, rolodex, etc], then the customer is more locked into not switching ISP's because they would then lose that address.

They are their own servers and all, they can provide whatever level and type of, cough, service, they want to. If I was using verizon I would consider strongly switching ISP's right away.

Also, there is the question of whether or not it is really necessary to use them as a mail gateway. One can always run one's own invocation of sendmail, and it would happily squirt off mail with any return address you wanted. That is, unless they have transparently proxied port 25, and put this additional restriction on it. Course, that wouldn't be so transparent a proxy anymore, would it.

I'll have to wait until I know more, but I really don't like any additional restrictions on use. Besides, spam really isn't much of a problem to me anyway. Just use seperate addresses for different classes of mail. Keep the spam coming to one or two, and have others for private and personal contacts.

---

Forcing users to violate RFC 822 (2)

3247 (161794) | about 13 years ago | (#70673)

This actually forces users to violate RFC 822, the mail format standard: The From header field must contain the author or authors of the message, not the actual sender.
So whenever a Verizon user wants to send a message that was not written by her or him, he is forced to violate RFC 822.
The correct solution would be to force a valid account in the From or Sender field (but maybe that's what Verizon ios doing anyway).

Re:So? (1)

tshak (173364) | about 13 years ago | (#70676)

I'm sorry but why are these posts mocking /. getting modded up to funny? This has NOTHING to do with mail RELAY or SPAMMING. If these jokers knew anything about mail, relay and sender are two different things. Not allowing relay doesn't mean the sender has to have a fixed domain. The sender is so easy to fake I can send anyone mail from billg@microsoft.com if I want to (READ: stick to the facts).

Re:This really isn't so bad. (1)

tshak (173364) | about 13 years ago | (#70677)

I never said it didn't work, or that it's not easy to set up. I personally use it because my ISP has yet to support SMTP-AUTH. I just know that 1/10 times you have to retry and that it's noticeably slower than SMTP-AUTH.

Re:This really isn't so bad. (2)

tshak (173364) | about 13 years ago | (#70678)

Most people these days use POP-BEFORE-SMTP or SMTP-AUTH

Based on what evidance? I'll agree that both methods are catching on rapidly, but just read further down and you'll see posts of people who work for ISP's that have yet to implement this.

I for one am a huge proponent of sending mail through the actual domain of the from address, but until SMTP-AUTH is a standard (POP-BEFORE-SMTP is too slow and doesn't always AUTH properly after each POP) , I don't think Verizon should do this. Especially with the advent of very cheap and easy to setup domain names.

Re:This really isn't so bad. (1)

Poor Soul (177868) | about 13 years ago | (#70679)

Most people these days use POP-BEFORE-SMTP or SMTP-AUTH in order to use a remote smtp server. It is a much better system because it allows people to actually send mail from THEIR server as opposed to relaying through their ISP's and having that in the headers.


This is what we do for our hosting, and it works great. And your definitely right, the users love it.

In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."

Re:Earthlink is configured this way (1)

Poor Soul (177868) | about 13 years ago | (#70680)

I ran into this problem as well when I had Earthlink Dial-Up. To get around it, we just set our mail-server up to listen on a different port.. heh heh. But that was only a temporary solution until we got secure pop/smtp set up. You might try it to get you by.

In the words of Homer Simpson... "Mmmmm... beer."

This is NOT a good thing (1)

mooboy (191903) | about 13 years ago | (#70687)

I've never used Verison for any of my client's Internet services, so no big problem for now, but this policy is quite disturbing. Imagine that you are a small business using a Linux box with a dynamic DNS client. That box can host a multitude of services for you company on the Internet, one of the most important of which is email. You're paying only for the DSL or cable Internet access and get to administrate accounts and sendmail policies yourself. The power is in your hands.

Now imagine that suddenly the smarthost that your sendmail server forwards all outgoing email to refuses to deliver messages that you and your coworkers send. And its because they're not From: a valid email address hosted by the ISP!!

Verison is taking away a key capability here. It basically means that Verison's users can no longer run their own email servers. The power is now in Verison's hands. Ready to pay for that email hosting service Verison has? You'd better be.

Re:This is NOT a good thing (1)

mooboy (191903) | about 13 years ago | (#70688)

According to neurotik's post, this situation could be solved by simply not using a smarthost and delivering SMTP directly, since Verizon apparently does not block such things. So Verison, you're off the hook... for now!

Spanish Telecom also does that (2)

Tirs (195467) | about 13 years ago | (#70689)

Telefónica, the Spanish almost-monopolistic telecom company, began to do this some months ago, and the only problems that arose were that THEY DID NOT WARN THE USERS BEFORE. The "end" users, the ones with modem connection and two-emails-a-day, had no problem. The e-mail-junkies (like me) and the heavily-Internet-dependant companies (like the one I work for) simply set up their own Linux SMTP servers in their old, already-replaced, no-longer-usable-for-desktop 486 (or, if they use Linux in their desktops, as it is my case at home, just set up an SMTP server which I fire up only when I need it, to save RAM).
Bottom line: NO PROBLEMO.

WHOAH... (5)

sourcehunter (233036) | about 13 years ago | (#70699)

Wait a dern minute here...

I can understand blocking outgoing port 25 on your network except for your mail server and thus assuring that all mail is routed through the ISP's mail server - Mindspring/Earthlink has been doing this for quite a while! But not relaying mail for your local users (regardless of from address) breaks one of the core reasons for having LOCAL mail servers. What the hell else are people going to do? Most third partys' mail servers are locked down to allow local relay only (as well they should be!). Yeah there are a few open relays out there, but everyone won't be able to find one. I for one won't be opening up my server!

Here's what I see happening:
This will actually increase Verizon Online's network's contribution to spam...

  1. Verizon blocks their users from using their mail servers for foo@bar.com accounts
  2. Many of the more savvy users start their own mail servers on verizon's network to act as a local relay.
  3. Some of these people aren't going to be savvy enough and some of these servers will not be configured correctly such that they are open relays (not hard AT ALL to do)
  4. Some spammers find these open relays
  5. Verizon's network is now contributing to the spam
Basically, what this tells me is that they are too lazy to police their own users by dealing with spammers when they occur and instead have opted to just say "It isn't us! We're secured!"

Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (3)

DeadMeat (TM) (233768) | about 13 years ago | (#70700)

What if you have your own domain name for E-mail purposes, like if you have your own small business? So much for that, unless the people hosting your E-mail have an SMTP server available, which may not be the case if you're just using it for forwarding to your Verzion POP3 box. Ideally you could set up a SMTP server, but that isn't always feasible in the real world, and if Verizon starts blocking outgoing SMTP (like a lot of ISPs, including mine [swbell.com] do already) you're SOL.

At any rate, if the point is to stop spammers, it's not necessarily going to be very effective, since there's no reason a spammer couldn't give a bogus @verzion.com E-mail address (or, worse, use somebody else's real one).

Re:From us that host domains (1)

Meowing (241289) | about 13 years ago | (#70701)

If you're got a POP3 swerver running, does it support XTND XMIT? Not everyone can use that, but Eudora can send mail that way and *x users can use a little script to replace sendmail.

It's little and I'd post it, but the lameness filter is too lame to let it though. Bah.

Re:Not sure what to think (1)

Pheersum (243554) | about 13 years ago | (#70702)

ummm...Verizon is not Sprint. Verizon is the company that resulted when Bell Atlantic and GTE merged.
*tip*

Not sure what to think (5)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | about 13 years ago | (#70703)

Obviously this is not a kosher thing to do with regards to established norms of Internet community and openess. But, this ain't 1993. I seriously doubt how much spam this will prevent.

But, in the end, the servers ARE theirs. If they don't want to share, or if they want to limit thier customers abilities, we can do thing the Capitalist way. Not buy thier service, and use other smtp servers. I've had RoadRunner for over a year now, and haven't even setup my *@rr.com accounts. I use thier DNS, but that's it. Perhaps I don't fully understand the implication of Verizon (Sprint) doing this, but I don't really see how it will amount to a hill of beans.

Re:Use reply-to (2)

baptiste (256004) | about 13 years ago | (#70705)

What's the problem?

You obviously have never run a small business. Small business owners want their business to appear biger and more professional to be attractive to customers. Sending email from address X reply to address Y appears amateurish and presents them as technically challenged. Small companies need Internet access and sometimes Verizon is the only game in town. You used to be able to host email at a web hosting company till ISPs started blocking ALL outgoing SMTP traffic. So much for that. So folks found they could send using their ISP server while still using their domain in their email. Now Verizon is blocking that. Its sad and in teh end will only hurt Verizon.

I'm lcuky enough to have an ISP that doesn't pull hair-brained schemes like this - but they are small and understand who their customers are. However, one company I host email for found that their ISP started blocking outgoing port 25 - they couldn't use our server anymore - till we just redirected a high port (like 3000 or something) to port 25 on their email server - they updated their clients and it works fine - ISPs can't block ports > 1024 without causing major disruptions in client traffic.

So now those of us hosting small (and even large) ISPs/hosting companies are faced with not just fighting spammers, but fighting brain-dead ISPs who would rather impact their customers in the name of blocking spam. Problem is there is ALWAYS a work around!

The bottom line is, if you are faced with this problem and can find someone else with an email server - see if they can either redirect a high port to port 25 on their firewall or on the mail server itself.

Re:Annoying, but a reasonable policy to enforce. (2)

baptiste (256004) | about 13 years ago | (#70706)

If Verizon were to combine their anti-forgery rule with a 'you must use our mail hosts' rule, that would be a serious inconvenience to legitimate users.

That's the point. They ALREADY block outgoing Port 25 traffic so, yes, that is why this is such a big deal. The only way for Verizon customers to send email from their own domains is to either switch ISPs or find an email hosting company that can accept SMTP mail from a higher port that won't be blocked.

Re:Third Party Relays (2)

baptiste (256004) | about 13 years ago | (#70707)

If you have a secondary email account (I have 6 from 4 different ISP's) then you should set up your secondary accounts to use the correct servers.

Problem is you CAN'T DO THIS with Verizon since they block ALL outgoing SMTP traffic except traffic FROM their email servers. Thus, your client CANNOT use a secondary email server to send email - the traffic is blocked - plain and simple. Thus this decision means you MUST send email from verizon's domain or not at all unless you use a web based client to send email directly from your secondary ISP's servers OR find an ISP willing to redirect a higher port > 1024 to port 25 on their mail server to get around the Port 25 traffic blocks.

Re:this is a good idea... (1)

pdiaz (262591) | about 13 years ago | (#70710)

If the machine you are sending mail doesn't resolve on the internet, you'll have problems with some mail servers

Also, I you CC a lot you'll be wasting bandwitch since your mail server has to connect to all the people who you send the mail

What I do is use a system on my network acting as smtp server of my home net. This server uses my isp mail server as a smarthost. It's almost as fast as using localhost as smtp server, and you save bandwith

This isn't so bad... (3)

DennyK (308810) | about 13 years ago | (#70711)

Most people who have "outside" domains will also have outside SMTP mail servers to use. Only those people with those forwarding address services, etc. will really be affected. I almost never use my ISP's email service anyway... ;)

There is an interesting potential issue here, however...lately, another "anti-spam" trick ISPs have been using is to block outbound requests on port 25. This prevents their customers from using outside SMTP servers (and really causes a hassle for us web hosting companies trying to figure out why people can't send mail with their account's servers...). You have to wonder if an ISP will ever try to implement both the From: field restriction and the blocking of port 25, all in the name of "preventing spam..." Perhaps this could be a way for ISPs to more effectively enforce those stupid TOS clauses about not using your Internet connection for business purposes? Do you think enough people would drop an ISP who did this to make it a really bad idea, or do some of these ISPs have enough mindless zombies as clients that they could get away with it? I can't see it working, because there are too many people out there now who do have mail at their own web sites or from other services, but you never know...you wouldn't think so many people would put up with the crap that AOL throws at it's users, but they're still the biggest "sort-of-ISP" out there...

DennyK

pop on smtp (1)

sagi (314445) | about 13 years ago | (#70713)

My ISP (012.net) does that for a while now.. It's really annoying, but we solved after enabling pop on smtp on the remote mail server.

We're using QMail [qmail.org] +VPOPMail [inter7.com] for that, and it works very nice.

This is not a problem... (1)

neurotik (315576) | about 13 years ago | (#70715)

If you are sending mail from another domain, then simply use the SMTP server provided by that service. For example, my parents have verizon DSL. My mother has a yahoo e-mail address. She got this same e-mail, because she was using one of Verizon's smtp servers to send mail. I simply changed the config to send outgoing mail you yahoo's smtp servers. Problem solved.

Now, if Verizon were like some other services (Earthlink) and didn't let you send outgoing mail unless through their smtp servers, and THEN implemented this, I would be angry. But really this isn't a problem.

Glad I got rid of them (1)

loydcc (325726) | about 13 years ago | (#70726)

I had Verizon DSL and use a permenant email address through a friends company. I jumped ship for cable 2 months ago. If I stayed with Verizon I'd loose the address that begins Loyd@... and have to tell my friends to remember vzkex402@...

That's what I call great customer service!

THIS JUST IN:We've got to free little Nikita SMTP! (1)

President of The US (443103) | about 13 years ago | (#70731)

Nikita SMTP, a server that was just minding its own business and relaying mail for some entertainment-minded businessmen, was apprehended on Friday in what appears to be an attempt to restrict freedom of sp(eech)(am). The server had just completed delivering a short presentation to 2,000,000 eager recipients about HOT NUDES AWAITING when agents from Verizon ruthlessly unplugged its ethernet cable and took it to a secure area for questioning.

No one has had contact with Nikita SMTP since that time, and his relatives (among them Alexei POP, who said he was feeling a little nervous himself) and friends all have made numerous attempts to ping him. But timouts expired on all of those attempts, it is reported now.

It is clear we need to free our little Nikita as he was clearly exercising his right to do whatever he wanted as guaranteed by a vague understanding of the Constitution. Protests will be scheduled to march on Verizon's headquarters, unless Verizon promises to think about the possibility of bringing up a motion to free Nikita at their next stockholders' meeting. In that case, we'll consider it a done deal and go home quietly.
-----------------------

So what? (1)

Ybrog (443335) | about 13 years ago | (#70733)

I'm a Verizon customer and could care less. I don't use their email services. Why should I?

Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (1)

the_brat_king (443955) | about 13 years ago | (#70734)

The problem with limiting based on IP address is this method is still not a cure-all, a combination of IP based and domain based blocking, along with name authentication, would be the best policy. As for companies that need Verizon's servers for their outgoing SMTP, maybe they should invest in a midrange computer, put something like Slackware 8.0 on it, and set up sendmail (Or Zmailer, my choice for volume sites). Then, for an extra 8 bucks a month lease a static IP and host their own email services (If you are a business, do you REALLY want copies of all of your personal information sitting in a third party's mail server logs?). This would be more secure, in compliance with Verizon, and possibly even more effective! (I automatically think mail is Spam, if the From: tag doesn't match the server name). Just a thought though.

Third Party Relays (3)

the_brat_king (443955) | about 13 years ago | (#70735)

If you have a secondary email account (I have 6 from 4 different ISP's) then you should set up your secondary accounts to use the correct servers. This is what we have black-listing for (to stop third party relays). All mail servers I host not only block relays, but also reject messages where the From: domain doesn't properly resolve with reverse DNS. The affect is that we have less than 1 spam on our servers a day, out of about 750,000 mails a day. We also block the "From:" address (Forging a root email or admin email) except on the administrative system (not only IP checking, but because they are on the same segment it checks the MAC address against the static MAC table). I think Verizon is FINALLY doing something right, and their customers should email them and thank the sys admin who finally got through some middle management's thick skull to implement standard blocking. Congrats to Verizon! Good work in NOT getting black-listed for relaying. (Had they not done this, and been black-listed, would there be an article on slashdot about the evils of a company that allows third-party relays?)

Is the FTC winning? (2)

6EQUJ5 (446008) | about 13 years ago | (#70736)


They want your spam at: uce@ftc.gov [mailto]

Don't mess with the Feds. Now if only they had a place to report pop-up ads...

Not as bad as 1st.net (2)

ChaseTec (447725) | about 13 years ago | (#70737)

1st.net blocks ALL SMTP traffic. Not just to keep people from other networks from using their SMTP servers, but to keep their own customers from using outside SMTP servers. It shouldn't be to long now till someone does both of these things to completely prevent people from using other email address while connected to them.

Translation: (1)

Zen Mastuh (456254) | about 13 years ago | (#70740)

We are taking this action as a result of our continuing efforts to improve the quality and reliability...

That statement is to Corporate America what "It's for the Children..." is to our elected Government. It's the ultimate example of Newspeak-- they can now improve service by restricting service?

Don't see what good this will do... (1)

kf4lhp (461232) | about 13 years ago | (#70747)

BellSouth requires the domain you use in the from field to resolve to a valid domain, which seems to be a much better solution than just requiring you to use their domain.

Don't you get it? (1)

rambot (466616) | about 13 years ago | (#70750)

It's fine if they don't want to not allow relaying, but that can (and is!) done with IP addresses. Using the from field is totally lame. That means if you have a bigfoot email address or a similar remailer for privacy, portability, and disposability ie.. (change ISPs, or start getting to much spam on the account) .... you will no longer be able to use it.

Most remailer services don't allow you to relay through there servers. That would be as dumb as not letting you specify your from field. There are other ways to stop spammers. Better ways!

Re:Move on, nothing to see here. (1)

visualight (468005) | about 13 years ago | (#70751)

Fortunately I'm not on Verizon, but if I were I'd be pitching a fit. Nothing to see? What if I want my mail to be from my hotmail account but I also want to use my browsers email program to compose? I like reading my email on hotmail because I don't have to download anything, buy I like to compose on my browser becasue hotmails sucks.

Rob

Re:Real motive a disincentive from changing ISPs? (1)

pipsey (469502) | about 13 years ago | (#70754)

Bah.. it could be worse. You could not be able to recieve mail directly AT ALL.

I use roadrunner, and they block all incoming ports below 1025, including 25, in an attempt to stop "bandwidth hogs." In other words, even though I might have a domain pipsey.example.org pointing to my ip that's set up to send mail direct to me, if I try to mail root@pipsey.example.org it dies on trying to connect to sendmail on my box.

Anyone have any suggestions on what to do about this one?? I think I'd have to switch ISPs to host my own mail server. In comparison, I'd rather have Verizon's restriction than Roadrunner's, wouldn't you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...