DTP


 
Lively discussions on the graphic arts and publishing — in print or on the web


Go Back   Desktop Publishing Forum > General Discussions > General Publishing Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2005, 06:26 PM   #21
Stephen Owades
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Posts: 179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktinkel
Actually, in usable dollars, we were flush in the 70s (until NYC decided to stop paying people! Jack was working for Hunter College then …).

And since when did I ever flinch at an esthetic opportunity?

Nope, no recollection whatsoever. Maybe it was a mid-western thing. I used to work for a marketing research company, and we did all our testing in the mid-west. If it didn't work, then it never went east or west! <g>
I'm pretty sure I remember pastel-colored toilet paper, and I've always lived in the Northeast. And I wasn't under the influence of any pastel-inducing substances either.
Stephen Owades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 07:34 PM   #22
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

KT, either I'm misreading or I hope SBC mis-explained to you. Blocking Port25 usually means that if you want to send email using an SBC SMTP email account, you have to "dial into" SBC directly. Your SMTP mail will be rejected by the SBC server if you have connected to it via AOL, Earthlink, or any other ISP.

Compuserve pulled some similar nonsense years ago, and it still is nonsense. SBC can enable password authentication on their SMTP servers (which is what most ISPs do) so there is no excuse for blocking the port--except to force you, the customer, to use SBC access for your SBC accounts. This is either stupidity or extortion, either way it is time to see if there is another choice for broadband and ISP.

You *should* still be able to send SMTP email to other services--SBC's block should only affect an SBC account not on an SBC connection.

Or, they've tried to technobaffle you instead of explaining what's really going on.

Last edited by groucho; 04-12-2005 at 07:35 PM. Reason: typo
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 05:41 AM   #23
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
KT, either I'm misreading or I hope SBC mis-explained to you. Blocking Port25 usually means that if you want to send email using an SBC SMTP email account, you have to "dial into" SBC directly. Your SMTP mail will be rejected by the SBC server if you have connected to it via AOL, Earthlink, or any other ISP.
They block outbound e-mail that tries to use SMTP from any other account: my own, for example. Doesn’t have to be AOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBC/SNET
SBC is implementing outbound SMTP port controls to ensure the SBC network is as reliable as possible for our Members.

SBCIS began filtering Port 25 to separate outbound SMTP mail from dynamic IP mail. Most SNET Internet Members already use SBCIS SMTP mail servers for outbound email, and will not be impacted by this filter. Members not using SBC mail servers, such as a private company or university mail server, will not be able to send outbound email until one of the following actions are taken:
  • Convert your outgoing mail to the SBC SNET mail servers
  • Contact your server administrator for information about alternate access methods allowing connectivity to the 3rd party mail server (i.e., VPN, Web mail or Outlook Web Access)
  • Request that SBC removes the SMTP port filter from your account: on the SBC Yahoo! Abuse of Service form, enter the details of your request in the Abuse Description field.

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 08:08 AM   #24
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

Sumbitch. SBC is really going to extremes to extort their customers. I know you have better things to do, but if Verizon did that here, I'd file a complaint with the Public Utility Commission and then start an action against them for illegal restraint of trade, or something similar. If they block other mail servers with no good technical reason (which there isn't) they are taking unfair steps to block competitors, and failing to provide "full" ISP services to their customers. Somebody needs to take the big Class Action Hammer and gently tap it upside the SBC executives' heads.

What other broadband alternatives do you have?

I'm beginning to understand why they all say folks can't run our own email servers. I'm tired of switching emails and ISPs, I'd rather just have my own. Seems like nobody just wants to provide reliable service, for a home budget. (And damn few for a business budget either.) I wonder if you upgrade to "business" service if they still block it. IOW, price extortion.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 12:19 PM   #25
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Sumbitch. SBC is really going to extremes to extort their customers. I know you have better things to do, but if Verizon did that here, I'd file a complaint with the Public Utility Commission and then start an action against them for illegal restraint of trade, or something similar. If they block other mail servers with no good technical reason (which there isn't) they are taking unfair steps to block competitors, and failing to provide "full" ISP services to their customers. Somebody needs to take the big Class Action Hammer and gently tap it upside the SBC executives' heads.
Why? That is, you call it extortion, but it seems to me it makes their servers busier, at no increase in fees. My main objection is to being compelled to keep all my eggs in their basket, but am not sure I see a greedy motive. I figured they were just lazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
What other broadband alternatives do you have?
Cablevision. Or Earthlink DSL, which leases from SBC, I believe.

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 12:42 PM   #26
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

KT-
I call it extortion because it forces you to give them all of your email business. Yes, that will make their servers slightly busier but you have to understand that probably is no significant extra cost for them. By forcing you to put all of your email on their service, they are making it impossible for their customers to use anyone else as a primary email address. And that means you will make SBC your primary email address, and you will be less likely to switch to any other ISP because no one, absolutely no one, wants the hassle of switching email addresses.
It is exactly the same issue of "phone number portability" where the carriers are now required to let you take your phone number with you when you go to another carrier. Same issue, same reasons, same marketing logic. If you can't take your email address with you--you won't be as likely to go elsewhere. Which makes you a more captive customer.
And then when SBC raises rates...guess what? You're stuck paying the increase unless you want to change your "number", which no one wants to do.

Since there is no valid anti-spam reason to lock out SMTP that way (and I've still never heard it explained or done that way, blocking access to Port 25 would normally block it out everywhere, so they must be filtering packets based on the port and destination, which means some expensive routing time
is being inve4sted in this) the only real reason must be marketing.

Marketing: The science of making the sheep think it was their own idea to come in, be sheared, skinned, and turned into dinner.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 01:37 PM   #27
ktinkel
Founding Sysop
 
ktinkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In Connecticut, on the Housatonic River near its mouth at Long Island Sound.
Posts: 11,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
… they are making it impossible for their customers to use anyone else as a primary email address. And that means you will make SBC your primary email address, and you will be less likely to switch to any other ISP because no one, absolutely no one, wants the hassle of switching email addresses.
But I don’t use them as my address — not primary, not tertiary, not any. That’s what is so silly to me. I use, for example, my broadlyspeaking.com address, for which I could use my host’s SMTP. But as of last weekend, trying to do that prevented me from sending any mail on that address. All I had to do to fix it — once I discovered what was going on — was to enter the SBC SMTP into Eudora, and my mail went through just fine (showing my broadlyspeaking return address).

So how am I stuck? If I switch to another ISP with similar attitudes, then I will have to use its SMTP. If not, I can go back to using my own SMTP from whichever host has my web site and e-mail address.

   
__________________
[SIZE=2][COLOR=LemonChiffon]::[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ktinkel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 02:07 PM   #28
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

I'm not sure, KT. I don't understand exactly what they've done. You're saying that you can use another account, if you use SBC as the SMTP server. Well...Yes, the "FROM" and "REPLYTO" fields can be different but if you do that, there are far more ISPs that will block your email because those two fields don't match. Catch-22.

So whatever they are doing...it's oddball.
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 03:50 PM   #29
Shane Stanley
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groucho
Well...Yes, the "FROM" and "REPLYTO" fields can be different but if you do that, there are far more ISPs that will block your email because those two fields don't match.
That's really not true, and hasn't been for some time. What the ISP is doing is what lots of ISPs have done after they've found all mail from their clients being bounced because spammers are sending through unprotected mail servers on their network.

Shane
Shane Stanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 03:58 PM   #30
groucho
Staff
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 490
Default

Shane, when you say unprotected mail severs, are you referring to open mail relay? That's the only protection problem that I've ever heard discussed. What KT is saying is apparently that she isn't being allowed to REACH "her own" other email servers.

In the past I've only heard of ISPs that require you to use their own server for their own accounts. In this case, they're apparently blocking access to other servers--not just restricting access to their own.

Now, if we're not crossing understandings on that, this may be old hat to you but I've never read or heard anything of it over here. I've never had an ISP block me from sending SMTP mail via a valid account at someone else's remote server. I've only had the problem that CIS presents, where you can only send CIS mail if you are logged on from a CIS node. (Or using HMI, etc.)
groucho is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Courier E-Mail George The Corner Pub 1 01-28-2007 11:35 PM
osx mail help helene silverman General Publishing Topics 6 08-18-2005 11:46 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Contents copyright 2004–2014 Desktop Publishing Forum and its members.