What's with this "new settings" shtick?

[tlvp]

Come to see in my latest att.net email, a message seemingly from my ISP:

---[quote]---
Give your Email a Tune Up!

Dear AT&T Internet service member,

As part of on-going enhancements to our Internet services, we’re
making some changes to our email servers to offer you an even better
performance.

If you use an email application such as Microsoft Outlook® or Apple
Mail, etc. to send or receive email and would like to boost the
performance of your email application, give your email a tune up
and update your email settings to take advantage of these
enhancements!

What You Should Know

• By using the latest settings, you’ll have a more direct connection
to our server and improve the speed, efficiency, and safety when
you access your email.

• Changing your email settings does not change your email ID.

• If you choose not to update your email settings, you’ll still be
able to send and receive email and your old settings will continue
to work, but you’ll get better performance using the latest settings.

How Do I Update my Email Settings?

You can update your email settings easily online at the AT&T Support
site. Just go to www.att.com/updatesettings.

Or you can navigate there yourself:

* Go to the att.net home page
* Click the "AT&T Support" link in the upper right corner
* Type "email updater" in the Search bar

After you update your settings, if you need a support you can click
on the link below or cut and paste it into the your navigation bar in
your browser:

http://portalmigration.att.net/attportal/s/s.dll?spage=all/customer_webform.html&ch=wd

We hope these enhancements will help you get the most out of your
Internet service! Thank you for choosing AT&T for your Internet
needs.

Sincerely,

Your AT&T Internet Services Customer Care Team
---[/quote]---

Sounds good, but for the "need a support" and the "the your navigation bar"
towards the end, which tend to make me think I'm being phished.

So: what gives with this message? The headers look absolutely real and, if
spoofed, must have been done by a consummate professional!

Cheers, and TIA for any advice, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[Dan Gall]

Well, whomever wrote the website doesn't have a clue.

I went to the site listed and then chose the manual update your settings
they have there. I entered a Mac (10.5 above) with Thunderbird as the
email client.

And the first thing it tells me is

Start-->All Programs--> Mozilla Thunderbird-->Mozilla Thunderbird
which is the WINDOWS command, not the Mac one at all! And it shows a
screen that shows a Thunderbird Icon with the title Mozilla Thunderbird
on it - on the Mac it shows the APPLE icon and simply Thunderbird.

Additionally, I noted the 'email updater' DOESN'T work on OS Lion - nor
does it work on Mac with Firefox - only Safari.

If it is a bona fide site, then its typical AT&T stupidity. You think
they would get someone who USES a Mac to help them out with such.

As to whether its a 'good' email (not a phish). It seems it is. I can
find dozens of references to the recent change for AT&T to
"inbound.att.net" which is the server they are now using for email. I
would go for this one with no worries. If you wish you can use the
manually update your settings (not automatic) so you KNOW what is being
changed if you wish, but using the automatic one would be okay as well.

If this IS a phish, then its the BIGGEST and most involved phish I have
ever seen - and for what? Just to get some email addresses, and control
over mail? Isn't worth it, the rewards don't justify the means at all.

Go for it (the automatic update) - its not a phish.

[tlvp]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:14 -0400, Dan Gall wrote:

> On 24/4/12 22:23 , tlvp wrote:

>> Come to see, in my latest att.net email, a message seemingly from my ISP:

>>
>> ---[quote]---
>> Give your Email a Tune Up!
>

> Well, whomever wrote the website doesn't have a clue.
>
> I went to the site listed and then chose the manual update your settings
> they have there. I entered a Mac (10.5 above) with Thunderbird as the
> email client.
>
> And the first thing it tells me is
>
> Start-->All Programs--> Mozilla Thunderbird-->Mozilla Thunderbird

Well, Dan, that's a silly thing to tell a Mac owner, isn't it?

> Go for it (the automatic update) - its not a phish.

If I went for anything, it'd be the new POP3 and SMTP server settings
information -- I wouldn't let them update anything in my equipment
automatically, I'd want to enter the new settings myself, by hand.

How do the new ones compare? Old ones for POP3 are/were:

[for @att.net addies]
Server name:port - ipostoffice.worldnet.att.net:995
Use secure connection: SSL
Use secure authentication? [no]

[for @yahoo.com addies]
Server name:port - pop.att.yahoo.com:110
Use secure connection: Never
Use secure authentication? [no]

Old ones for SMTP (but I don't use either one) are said to be:

[for @att.net addies]
Server name:port - imailhost.worldnet.att.net:465
Use secure connection: SSL
Use name & passsword? [yes]

[for @yahoo.com addies]
Server name:port - smtp.att.yahoo.com:465
Use secure connection: SSL
Use name & passsword? [yes]

What are the new ones, Dan, if I may ask? Or how do they differ?
Thanks for whatever you can report :-) . And cheers, -- tlvp

[Dan Gall]

> Use name& passsword? [yes]

>
> [for @yahoo.com addies]
> Server name:port - smtp.att.yahoo.com:465
> Use secure connection: SSL

> Use name& passsword? [yes]

>
> What are the new ones, Dan, if I may ask? Or how do they differ?
> Thanks for whatever you can report :-) . And cheers, -- tlvp
>
>

New ones

inbound.att.net:995 (465)
Use secure connection: SSL
Use name & password: [yes]

You enter the Port number in Thunderbird as 995 - it seems it comes out
as 465 - I cannot verify that of course, but it does say specifically to
enter 995 yet on their web site it shows in their image as 465

see
http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB401573#fbid=0B7N8kKRPGy

to see what I mean
this is of course the same stupid site that gives windows instructions
for a mac.

The SMTP server is outbound.att.net


Or, you can view the instructions for your particuler mail program by
going to
http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB407912#fbid=0B7N8kKRPGy

and choosing the "instructions to manually update your email settings."
link there.

Of course enter your OS when prompted and your email program as well.
Then you can read what they say to enter which will change slightly
dependent on your email program of course.

[tlvp]

Odd that they should suggest 465 for a POP3 inbound port.
Usually 465 is reserved for outbound SMTP ports, and 995
for (secure) POP3 inbound.

Well, maybe that's just par for a site that thinks a Mac has a Start button
and an All Programs folder :-) .

> You enter the Port number in Thunderbird as 995 - it seems it comes out
> as 465 - I cannot verify that of course, but it does say specifically to
> enter 995 yet on their web site it shows in their image as 465

Maybe the instruction is for POP3 port, and image illustrates SMTP port?

> see
> http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB401573#fbid=0B7N8kKRPGy
>
> to see what I mean
> this is of course the same stupid site that gives windows instructions
> for a mac.
>
> The SMTP server is outbound.att.net
>
>
> Or, you can view the instructions for your particuler mail program by
> going to
> http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB407912#fbid=0B7N8kKRPGy

Oh, I see -- the illustration mistyped the SMTP server as "inbound" rather
than "outbound", but used the expected 465 outbound SMTP port.

For the real POP inbound server, they show wanting 995 as port. (Pshaw!)

> and choosing the "instructions to manually update your email settings."
> link there.
>
> Of course enter your OS when prompted and your email program as well.
> Then you can read what they say to enter which will change slightly
> dependent on your email program of course.

Thanks, Dan. I guess I'll leave my settings as they are for the nonce, as
they're working well (and at&t just renewed their certificates a week ago
or so, for two more years (to expire mid April of 2014).

Good thing I got over my initial paranoia and visited those pages myself.

Cheers, -- tlvp

[tlvp]

A year's gone by, and still no *need* for "new settings". Cheers, -- tlvp

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Dan Gall wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Dan Gall wrote:

>>> tlvp wrote:
>>>> tlvp wrote:
>>>>> Come to see in my latest att.net email, a message seemingly from my
>>>>> ISP:

>>>> [snip content relevant to both groups]
>>>>
>>> Please don't crosspost
>>
>> Please learn that crossposting is an effective tool. Your penchant for
>> *multi*posting the same content to relevant groups is wrong.
>>
>> Once again, read this:
>> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
>>
>> Oh, and you could trim quotes as well, for replies such as yours.
>
> BS. I will NOT have my words dragged into a place where I didn't put
> them. By crossposting my answer would have been dragged into
> alt.online-service.att-worldnet a group in which I do NOT participate.
>
> By crossposting you are broadcasting, not only your message, but any
> reply as well unless the person is saavy enough to delete the crosspost.

If you were to post an answer to a crossposted question in just one group,
all the people who only subscribe to the other group will not see your
answer, and will not know the OP's question has been answered. You are
causing duplicate effort by removing the crosspost.

You'll never understand, right?

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

> If I posted an answer why do the people in the other group have to see
> it at all?
>
> I relate it to things like when Just Judy was having problems posting to
> the group. She had several suggestions in the group, but then resolved
> the problem by another method, by talking it over with someone she knew
> (or following instructions in another group).
>
> No one here 'demanded' that she post the solution, it was sufficient
> that she was posting again.
>
> So where was this 'duplicate effort' you speak of in that situation?
>
> If a person posts a question in the newsgroup, but then uses another
> forum, or method to resolve the question, then if asked the person could
> say it was answered elsewhere, if and when anyone asks. And in some
> cases, no one ever asks, so why go to lengths to prevent a situation
> that seldom occurs?
>
> If I wanted to see the solution, then I could ask, or participate in
> other groups to see such, but in most cases, if the person says the
> problem has been resolved, then that's fine, they don't have to provide
> the solution if it wasn't arrived at in the group at all.
>
> For some years I worked online (in newsgroups) for a major ISP. People
> came there, posted their problems and received an 'answer' that we were
> aware of. Oft times they resolved the question themselves, sometimes by
> research on their part, sometimes by personal experimentation, or
> getting an answer on another forum. If the person stated they had
> resolved the problem, we didn't demand they post the solution, it was
> sufficient that the problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the
> customer.
>
> If there is sufficient interest in the problem, then people can ask for
> the solution if one is not evident in group. But as I said previously,
> in many cases, that level of interest is simply not there, it is
> sufficient that the problem is resolved.
>
> Crosspost snipped

I was right. You don't understand...

--
-bts
-quoting untrimmed for clarity

[John F. Morse]

I was also right when I stated it would save time to simply talk to your hand.


--
John

When a person has -- whether they knew it or not -- already
rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?