SMTP server (mail.pacbell.net) problem? - please help

[Adam]

When sending emails, I am suddenly getting the following message ...

"The connection to the server has failed. Account:
'email....@gmail.com - mail.pacbell.net - requires authentication',
Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol: SMTP, Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No,
Socket Error: 10060, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E"

Did something change recently ?

[Jeff Liebermann]

Not recently. It changed about 2 years ago. To avoid flooding the
support phones, AT&T left the old mail.pachell.net server in place,
and is forcing the change one POP at a time. It's now your turn to
make the change.
<http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB401570&cv=804>
<http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=33462&cv=820>
Incidentally, this would be a good time to switch to imap4 instead of
POP3.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Adam]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:v8h1ualj20oeb95ut...@4ax.com...

I pay $50+ for DSL internet service and I can't even send email ?
Time to switch. #@#@^$&%

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:28:42 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:

>I pay $50+ for DSL internet service and I can't even send email ?
>Time to switch. #@#@^$&%

You're welcome.

[Adam]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message

news:ea62uahe91budobjo...@4ax.com...

Thanks, but that wasn't meant for you.

Now, I am getting "553 From address not verified"...
http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB412255&cv=812

But, I can't even "Log in to att.net and go to your email inbox."

Please make "mail.pacbell.net" available again.

[Rob Warnock]

Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
+---------------

+---------------

In addition to what others have mentioned, something that *did*
change "recently" [this summer] is that many ISPs have begin
implementing mitigations for the "Logjam" vulnerability[1][2]
by disallowing Diffie-Hellman key exchange [used at the beginning
of SSL, SSH, etc.] with the old "U.S. export grade" DH prime
lengths [512 bits]. E.g., GMail just switched to using a ECDHE
[elliptic-curve DH], which apparently broke old versions of
Eudora. So this *might* be part of what's going on... [Might.]


-Rob

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logjam_(computer_security)

[2] https://weakdh.org/

-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403

[Keith Keller]

["Followup-To:" header set to ba.internet.]

On 2015-08-29, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>
> "Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> news:v8h1ualj20oeb95ut...@4ax.com...
>>

>> Not recently. It changed about 2 years ago. To avoid flooding the
>> support phones, AT&T left the old mail.pachell.net server in place,
>> and is forcing the change one POP at a time. It's now your turn to
>> make the change.
>> <http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB401570&cv=804>
>> <http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=33462&cv=820>
>> Incidentally, this would be a good time to switch to imap4 instead of
>> POP3.
>

> I pay $50+ for DSL internet service and I can't even send email ?
> Time to switch. #@#@^$&%

PEBKAC

--keith

--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Adam]

"Rob Warnock" <rp...@rpw3.org> wrote in message
news:55e122d8$0$1650$742e...@news.sonic.net...

> Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | When sending emails, I am suddenly getting the following message ...
> | "The connection to the server has failed. Account:
> | 'email....@gmail.com - mail.pacbell.net - requires authentication',
> | Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol: SMTP, Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No,
> | Socket Error: 10060, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E"
> | Did something change recently ?
> +---------------
>
> In addition to what others have mentioned, something that *did*
> change "recently" [this summer] is that many ISPs have begin

Something *did* change "recently" is right. I was able to
successfully send email just two (2) days ago. Now, I can't.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:11:46 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:ea62uahe91budobjo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:28:42 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I pay $50+ for DSL internet service and I can't even send email ?
>>>Time to switch. #@#@^$&%
>>
>> You're welcome.

>Thanks, but that wasn't meant for you.

Your message shows that it was in response to my comments. If not me,
then to whom are you complaining?

>Now, I am getting "553 From address not verified"...
>http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB412255&cv=812

Did you follow the instructions in the message? AT&T is security
conscious, which in this case means that you need to survive an ordeal
process that clearly identifies you as the owner of your email
address. Trust, but verify and all that. Please follow the
procedure.

>But, I can't even "Log in to att.net and go to your email inbox."

If you can't login to <http://att.yahoo.com> you might have a typo
problem, wrong user name (use your full email address), or wrong
password.

>Please make "mail.pacbell.net" available again.

You'll have to wait for the zombie apocalypse for the dead to rise
again.

I got calls today from two pacbell.net customers with exactly the same
problem. Both had a few really old machines using the old
mail.pacbell.net configurations. My guess(tm) is something changed at
Yahoo which broke the mail. I'm the admin for these accounts and I've
received nothing from AT&T or Yahoo about any recent or impending
changes. So, you may get your wish if Yahoo decides to undo whatever
they may have changed.

[Adam]

"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message

news:5lc2uah90ko7udn7t...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:11:46 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>>news:ea62uahe91budobjo...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:28:42 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I pay $50+ for DSL internet service and I can't even send email ?
>>>>Time to switch. #@#@^$&%
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>
>>Thanks, but that wasn't meant for you.
>
> Your message shows that it was in response to my comments. If not me,
> then to whom are you complaining?
>

I meant the "#@#@^$&%" part was meant for AT&T (not you).

>>Now, I am getting "553 From address not verified"...
>>http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB412255&cv=812
>
> Did you follow the instructions in the message? AT&T is security
> conscious, which in this case means that you need to survive an ordeal
> process that clearly identifies you as the owner of your email
> address. Trust, but verify and all that. Please follow the
> procedure.
>
>>But, I can't even "Log in to att.net and go to your email inbox."
>
> If you can't login to <http://att.yahoo.com> you might have a typo
> problem, wrong user name (use your full email address), or wrong
> password.
>

My DSL internet service started from PacBell (before Yahoo and AT&T).
I never went through Yahoo. So, why would Yahoo "suddenly" know about my
accounts?

"If it ain't broke, please don't fix it. Cuz, chances are you'll break it."
:-)


BTW, did you try clicking on that link to login?
It doesn't seem to take me to a login page.

>>Please make "mail.pacbell.net" available again.
>
> You'll have to wait for the zombie apocalypse for the dead to rise
> again.
>
> I got calls today from two pacbell.net customers with exactly the same
> problem. Both had a few really old machines using the old
> mail.pacbell.net configurations. My guess(tm) is something changed at
> Yahoo which broke the mail. I'm the admin for these accounts and I've

Again, it's kinda hard for a PacBell/non-Yahoo customer to login to Yahoo.
Something is missing here.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 8/28/15 11:14 PM, Adam wrote:
>
>
> My DSL internet service started from PacBell (before Yahoo and AT&T).
> I never went through Yahoo. So, why would Yahoo "suddenly" know about my
> accounts?

Because AT&T outsourced their mail service to Yahoo! Like it or not, it's
managed by Yahoo! now.


- Peter

[David Kaye]

"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote

> My DSL internet service started from PacBell (before Yahoo and AT&T).
> I never went through Yahoo. So, why would Yahoo "suddenly" know about my
> accounts?

Not "suddenly" but for years. AT&T turned of its email service to Yahoo at
least a good 10 years ago. As a legacy act, AT&T kept the old pacbell.net
domain, and now I guess they decided to get rid of it. I'm not sure why
they even care, but they do.

People here will disagree with me, but I LIKE Yahoo's mail handling. Their
spam filtering is top-notch, their servers deliver mail promptly, their
vacation messages work flawlessly, they offer unlimited storage, they can be
used easily with IMAP and POP3, and they appear to be very secure -- I can't
recall any of my Yahoo accounts actually having been hacked -- spoofed, of
course, but not hacked.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:14:14 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:

>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>news:5lc2uah90ko7udn7t...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:11:46 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>>>But, I can't even "Log in to att.net and go to your email inbox."

>> If you can't login to <http://att.yahoo.com> you might have a typo
>> problem, wrong user name (use your full email address), or wrong
>> password.

>My DSL internet service started from PacBell (before Yahoo and AT&T).
>I never went through Yahoo. So, why would Yahoo "suddenly" know about my
>accounts?

Incidentally, all my pacbell.net addresses still work.

As others have mentioned, AT&T outsourced its email to Yahoo long ago.
It's quite transparent to the user, but if you follow the tangled path
through nslookup, it goes through all the local historical names
(pacbell.net, sbcglobal.net, pbi.net, prodigy.net, [1]). Yahoo has
been quite good at allowing users to maintain their old email
addresses and not forcing them to change to yahoo.com addresses.

>"If it ain't broke, please don't fix it. Cuz, chances are you'll break it."
>:-)

Sorry, but progress stops only for politicians. If you really wanted
things to remain exactly the same, without change, you would probably
be using dialup, picking up your email at the post office, doing math
on an abacus, and reading news on a teletype machine instead of a
computah. Sorry, but changes required by progress are inevitable.
Resistance is futile, you will be upgraded. You'll need to fix your
email settings and maybe learn how to use the login page. The world
will not change for you.

14 years ago:
<http://pachell.com>
I'm glad those days are over. Perhaps you should resurrect the web
site and continue the campaign?

>BTW, did you try clicking on that link to login?
>It doesn't seem to take me to a login page.

Of course I did. It logged me in automagically using my Yahoo account
with a saved password. I just logged out, and now is says "Sign In"
near the upper right hand corner of the page.

You can also login with a pacbell.net account at:
<http://mail.yahoo.com>
or
<http://login.yahoo.com>

>Again, it's kinda hard for a PacBell/non-Yahoo customer to login to Yahoo.
>Something is missing here.

I'm not a paying Yahoo customer, although I do have a Yahoo email
account so that I can use the Yahoo Groups that they ruined last year.
I just logged into:
<http://att.yahoo.com>
with my ancient pacbell.net email address. Works as expected.


[1] ameritech.net, att.net, bellsouth.net, flash.net, nvbell.net,
pacbell.net, portal.att.net, prodigy.net, sbcglobal.net, snet.net,
swbell.net, wans.net

[tlvp]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:29:45 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> 14 years ago:
> <http://pachell.com>
> I'm glad those days are over.

Ah, but are they really? Here in former SNET/SBC/at&t-land, Frontier is
making quite a show of out-fumbling even Pac[BH]ell :-) :-{ .

E.g.: 750 Kbit/s "Basic" DSL shows DL speedtest figure of 140 Kbit/s, UL of
10Kbit/s (!) . Yes, it does beat DUN speeds ... but not by all that much.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.