SMTP server (mail.pacbell.net) problem? - please help
Adam
The message could not be sent because the server rejected the sender's e-mail
address. The sender's e-mail address was 'public...@...com'. Subject 'website
problem?', Account: 'public...@...com', Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol:
SMTP, Server Response: '530 5.7.0 Authentication required', Port: 25,
Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 530, Error Number: 0x800CCC78
Did something change recently (like overnight)?
John Higdon
"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
What do you expect from a phone company that can't even keep
Cloverdale's phones working, and can't figure out why? So much for
"phone company reliability"!
http://www.kcbs.com/pages/2052581.php?contentType=4&contentId=1931078
My VOIP is looking better everyday!
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Adam
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-8F3A90....@news.announcetech.com...
I'm considering VOIP also. Is it possible to use my current phone with VOIP?
Anyone with VOIP care to share the cost and the pros & cons of VOIP?
John Higdon
"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
> I'm considering VOIP also. Is it possible to use my current phone with VOIP?
Of course.
Adam
Seems like Vonage, ViaTalk and BroadVoice are
3 of the better providers out there. Do these providers ever
have promotionals where activation/setup is free?
How can I get the best deal possible?
NormanM
Looks like it: "Authentication required". So, did you not change your
account properties in MSOE? I use Pegasus Mail, which threw this at me on
one send attempt:
[*] Connection established to 207.115.36.25
>> 0099 220 nlpi043.prodigy.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.8 smtpauth/dk/8.13.8; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:30:11 -0500
<< 0023 EHLO [192.168.102.34]
>> 0110 250-nlpi043.prodigy.net Hello adsl-69-110-149-81.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.110.149.81], pleased to meet you
>> 0025 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
>> 0016 250-PIPELINING
>> 0014 250-8BITMIME
>> 0010 250-SIZE
>> 0009 250-DSN
>> 0022 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN
>> 0015 250-DELIVERBY
>> 0010 250 HELP
<< 0041 MAIL FROM:<%User_ID%@pacbell.net> SIZE=575
>> 0035 530 5.7.0 Authentication required
So I changed the account propeties; added <%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+password
(well, actually just told PM to use the POP3 log in, but that uses
<%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+password).
MSOE has a setting for "My server requires authentication". Easier to fix it
by making the appropriate changes in account properties than to rant about
the required change. FWIW, I set the outgoing email port to 587, and it
sent. It even works with STARTTLS security! Imagine that (but MSOE doesn't
offer STARTTLS (a.k.a., "TLS") except over port 25).
No port 465 /SSL, though: 6: Socket timeout.
If you wanted to try Mozilla Thunderbird, you could configure
'mail.pacbell.net' to use port 587 with STARTTLS. Very nice for those who
want to access this message submission server from outside of the AT&T IP
network. Previously, you had to be connected to the AT&T IP network to use
this server.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
NormanM
> What do you expect from a phone company that can't even keep
> Cloverdale's phones working, and can't figure out why? So much for
> "phone company reliability"!
They have actually improved the way that 'mail.pacbell.net' works. First, to
solve the problem the OP had, you just add your full email address as the
user name, and your account password. If your client is already configured
to authenticate to 'postoffice.pacbell.net', you probably just have to tell
your client to use the POP3 log in for access.
They also added port 587 access to the server. So, if you are accessing from
a "hotspot", which is outside of the AT&T IP network, and blocking port 25
outbound, you can now use 'mail.pacbell.net', when you would not have been
able to do so before this change.
This change is, in fact, a very competent move.
SMS
You really need to call Bangalore to find out. Ask for Tom.
It took me only six calls to AT&T technical support to get my DSL
working last week. I finally almost lost it, and said: "could you please
connect me to someone that will not just tell be to reboot the computer
and press reset buttons." Amazingly they did, and the 2nd level support
was able to fix the problem on their end, whatever the hell the problem
was. On the plus side, I now have a DSL connection that stays up all the
time instead of dropping out completely several times per hour,
something I unfortunately couldn't get from Sonic. I also really like
the 2Wire combination wireless router and aDSL modem that AT&T sent.
NormanM
> You really need to call Bangalore to find out. Ask for Tom.
Easier to figure out what 'Authentication required' means (it was in the
error message!), and then implement the appropriate change in the email
client to address the problem. Some things can be done without having some
Hindi holding your hand.
Bill Z.
I've been having the same problem, where my mail program continually
tries to authenticate to no avail. I sent a report via AT&T's web site.
Like you, I'm also using a pacbell address, never having gotten around
to changing it.
Something definitely happened overnight. If a server failed, they
might have the replacement installed but have to update some tables,
but of course that is just a guess. Curiously, I can receive email,
which also requires authentication.
Bill
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
NormanM
> "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> writes:
>> When sending emails, I am suddenly getting the following message ...
>> The message could not be sent because the server rejected the sender's e-mail
>> address. The sender's e-mail address was 'public...@...com'. Subject 'website
>> problem?', Account: 'public...@...com', Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol:
>> SMTP, Server Response: '530 5.7.0 Authentication required', Port: 25,
>> Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 530, Error Number: 0x800CCC78
>> Did something change recently (like overnight)?
> I've been having the same problem, where my mail program continually
> tries to authenticate to no avail. I sent a report via AT&T's web site.
> Like you, I'm also using a pacbell address, never having gotten around
> to changing it.
Is your client actually set to authenticate? Are you using your full email
address? I have tested 'mail.pacbell.net' several times today.
mail.pacbell.net:25, use <%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+password: Works
mail.pacbell.net:587, use <%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+password: Works
mail.pacbell.net:587, w/TLS, use <%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+password: Works
mail.pacbell.net:465, w/SSL, use <%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+password: Fails
> Something definitely happened overnight. If a server failed, they
> might have the replacement installed but have to update some tables,
> but of course that is just a guess. Curiously, I can receive email,
> which also requires authentication.
It is working for me. Check your email client configuration. If your client
allows it, changing the port to 587, and using TLS (a.k.a. STARTTLS) is
optimal. Be aware that TLS is not the same as SSL.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> It took me only six calls to AT&T technical support to get my DSL
> working last week. I finally almost lost it, and said: "could you please
> connect me to someone that will not just tell be to reboot the computer
> and press reset buttons." Amazingly they did, and the 2nd level support
> was able to fix the problem on their end, whatever the hell the problem
> was. On the plus side, I now have a DSL connection that stays up all the
> time instead of dropping out completely several times per hour,
> something I unfortunately couldn't get from Sonic. I also really like
> the 2Wire combination wireless router and aDSL modem that AT&T sent.
Verizon Wireless has the same problem with customer support. When my
EVDO service recently refused to connect, I endured several days and
many calls to people who had me reboot, reload software, run self-tests,
and even go to another area before the problem got bumped to the next
level. Once that happened (problem started on Saturday; the escalation
occurred on Wednesday), the problem was remedied in fifteen minutes.
Seems they needed to reset keys at their end.
Sure would have been nice if someone could have done that on Saturday,
or even Monday!
I won't even go into what I subsequently went through on my AT&T 3G
service!
Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
>> tries to authenticate to no avail. I sent a report via AT&T's web site.
>> Like you, I'm also using a pacbell address, never having gotten around
>> to changing it.
Yes, in fact the change was last night (22 April). Provide your email address to
me by email and I will send you the new outgoing protocol for pacbell.net
subscribers.
-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634
Military Webmaster Site Link Request Form:
http://www.amervets.com/linkreq.htm
Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/share.htm
Steve Fenwick
Plug for meer.net (I am a customer). We had our DSL dropping out late
last week (modem reported over 1300 restarts overnight!) Called Saturday
night and left a message, they called back Sunday morning to say that
they had filed a trouble ticket with Covad because they determined
remotely that it was a line problem and would follow up on the repair.
AT&T tech was out on Tuesday morning and had it working in three hours
(bad pair out in the field somewhere).
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Bruno
I also had this problem too. It was fixed by reconfiguring the email
client to set the user to my use...@pacbell.net, instead of just the
userid.
Thanks to NormanM for mentioning it. That was the trick.
-Bruno
Bill Z.
I posted a statement that I was seeing the same problem (with slightly
different error messages due to a different email client) yesterday.
The post seems to have evaporated.
I'm still having the same problem today, but got a response from AT&T
suggesting new settings. They think I'm running Vista because their
#)(#($ web form does not allow me to indicate the OS I'm actually
using - really bad customer service on their part, and guy who
answered did not carefully read the text where I specifically mentioned
that their web form did not make it possible to be accurate.
The response suggested using a different set of servers, but allowed
the same email address. Haven't tested that yet - will have to wait
until later today.
NormanM
> "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> writes:
>> When sending emails, I am suddenly getting the following message ...
>>
>> The message could not be sent because the server rejected the sender's e-mail
>> address. The sender's e-mail address was 'public...@...com'. Subject 'website
>> problem?', Account: 'public...@...com', Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol:
>> SMTP, Server Response: '530 5.7.0 Authentication required', Port: 25,
>> Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 530, Error Number: 0x800CCC78
>>
>> Did something change recently (like overnight)?
> I posted a statement that I was seeing the same problem (with slightly
> different error messages due to a different email client) yesterday.
> The post seems to have evaporated.
If you mean this post:
| Newsgroups: alt.online-service.pacbell,ba.internet
| Subject: Re: SMTP server (mail.pacbell.net) problem? - please help
| References: <JDIPj.10533$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>
| Message-ID: <87r6cw2...@nospam.pacbell.net>
It is still there.
> I'm still having the same problem today, but got a response from AT&T
> suggesting new settings. They think I'm running Vista because their
> #)(#($ web form does not allow me to indicate the OS I'm actually
> using - really bad customer service on their part, and guy who
> answered did not carefully read the text where I specifically mentioned
> that their web form did not make it possible to be accurate.
>
> The response suggested using a different set of servers, but allowed
> the same email address. Haven't tested that yet - will have to wait
> until later today.
If you are referring to the problem wih 'mail.pacbell.net', I found a little
more research through a post to DSLR: AT&T Internet Services (ATTIS), the
operator of the legacy SMTP message submission servers for the nine former
SBC domains, has changed the DNS record to 'mail.pacbell.net', pointing it
to the same server cluster as 'smtpauth.flash.net',
'smtpauth.sbcglobal.net', and 'smptauth.prodigy.net'. Which means that the
same access rules now apply to 'mail.pacbell.net' as to the other SMTP AUTH
message submission servers.
The server ***REQUIRES*** authentication. This is a setting in your mail
client; it varies from client to client. It is on the Servers tab in Account
Properties in MS Outlook Express.
The server requires your username+password to access the server. You use
your full email address, i.e., <%User_ID%@pacbell.net>+PW.
Use of port 587 is optional.
I was mistaken about the need to use STARTTLS; it is ***NOT*** necessary;
and probably useless. And may generate an error.
Apparently, ATTIS still has some legacy SMTP message submission servers
which don't require authentication. Considering that they changed
'mail.pacbell.net' out of the blue, they may change the others, as well.
There is zero advantage to switching to one of those servers if you can just
change the settings in your client to use authentication. Most of the more
popular clients (MS Outlook Express, MS Outlook, Windows Mail, Windows Live
Mail, Mozilla Thunderbird, the SeaMonkey suit, Forté Agent, Eudora, Pegasus
Mail, etc., etc.) will work with SMTP AUTH.
Bill Z.
Thanks for mentioning it again, as I somehow missed NormanN's reply.
I'll check how my client is configured to see if that fixes the problem
in my case.
Bill Z.
> Adam wrote:
> > When sending emails, I am suddenly getting the following message ...
> > The message could not be sent because the server rejected the
> > sender's e-mail
> > address. The sender's e-mail address was 'public...@...com'. Subject 'website
> > problem?', Account: 'public...@...com', Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol:
> > SMTP, Server Response: '530 5.7.0 Authentication required', Port: 25,
> > Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 530, Error Number: 0x800CCC78
> > Did something change recently (like overnight)?
>
> You really need to call Bangalore to find out. Ask for Tom.
>
> It took me only six calls to AT&T technical support to get my DSL
> working last week. I finally almost lost it, and said: "could you
> please connect me to someone that will not just tell be to reboot the
> computer and press reset buttons."
The response I got was in part:
"since you are using a Vista computer and you did not mention
the client mail software that you are using, I will be
providing you the steps on how to remove and recreate you
profile using Windows Mail and Outlook 2007 since this issue
is causwd by a corrupted account profile."
In fact, I'm not using a "Vista computer" and stated that I had to
select a bogus choice for an OS because they required users to select
on to compete the form and "other" was not an option.
My mail client's configuration was not corrupted. AT&T had simply
changed the mail servers so that you needed to tag your domain
name onto your user name, separated by an "@". They could have
avoided this issue by simply sending everyone who might be
affected a warning indicating that you needed to change the user
name so that it becomes your full email address.
Thanks again for those who pointed out what the change you needed
actually was.
the entity once known as trebor at sirius.com
>Bruno <myN...@myISP.net> writes:
>> I also had this problem too. It was fixed by reconfiguring the email
>> client to set the user to my use...@pacbell.net, instead of just the
>> userid.
>>
>> Thanks to NormanM for mentioning it. That was the trick.
>
>Thanks for mentioning it again, as I somehow missed NormanN's reply.
>I'll check how my client is configured to see if that fixes the problem
>in my case.
That was the fix for me too, so it should work. Incoming mail doesn't to
require the @pacbell.net part, but outgoing does.
Bill Z.
I found that adding it for incoming mail doesn't hurt. That's probably
worth doing: they might be changing the servers to require "@pacbell.net"
in user names and haven't gotten to the POP3 server yet.
Adam
"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote in message
news:JDIPj.10533$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
It's time to go with another provider ...
NormanM
> My mail client's configuration was not corrupted. AT&T had simply
> changed the mail servers so that you needed to tag your domain
> name onto your user name, separated by an "@". They could have
> avoided this issue by simply sending everyone who might be
> affected a warning indicating that you needed to change the user
> name so that it becomes your full email address.
So many subscribers are already using SMTP AUTH servers (either
'smtpauth.sbcglobal.net', or 'smtp.att.yahoo.com') that it probably never
occurred to them that some small handful of subscribers were not logging in
to their message submission servers. It has been a couple of years, now,
since all logins were required to use the full email address.
NormanM
There aren't many left who allow SMTP access without authentication. If you
are in AT&T ILEC territory, one of your choices might be Comcast; and they
are also going through changes in the way email submission works.
Bill Z.
> Adam wrote:
> > When sending emails, I am suddenly getting the following message ...
> > The message could not be sent because the server rejected the
> > sender's e-mail
> > address. The sender's e-mail address was 'public...@...com'. Subject 'website
> > problem?', Account: 'public...@...com', Server: 'mail.pacbell.net', Protocol:
> > SMTP, Server Response: '530 5.7.0 Authentication required', Port: 25,
> > Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 530, Error Number: 0x800CCC78
> > Did something change recently (like overnight)?
>
> You really need to call Bangalore to find out. Ask for Tom.
FWIW, while my problem is now fixed following the advise given ont
this group (which AT&T's technical support sort of sent me, but burried
in a bunch of irrelevant advise), AT&T then sent me a customer-statisfaction
survey.
AT&T will not be getting a response - I filled in the survey and at the
very last step, it became obvious that the survey would fail to be
submitted if javascript was turned off (my default for security reason).
AT&T wasted my time - it doesn't get a second chance. If there web forms
were coded by competent professionals, there would have been a test to
make sure that javascript was on at the start, or javascript would not
have been required at all - it wasn't needed to select some radio buttons
and type in some text.
Adam
But, I can't seem to get it to send a FAX on DSL. It is connected after
the filter just like the telephone. Is this modem compatible with DSL?
Adam
Adam
Adam
NormanM
If it is properly filtered, as any POTS equipment, it should work on a line
with DSL. Have you tested it hooked up just by itself?
Cubit
>I just got a hold of a US Robotics 56K V92 external fax modem (USR5686E).
> But, I can't seem to get it to send a FAX on DSL. It is connected after
> the filter just like the telephone. Is this modem compatible with DSL?
>
>
I can't answer the DSL question, but my 56K USR modem required special
software that came with it on floppies to work.
Adam
"Cubit" <n...@not.not> wrote in message
news:gLqdnZlhytkP1oLV...@comcast.com...
Yes, I installed the drivers from the CD-ROM that
came with the USR5686E modem.
I will test the 56K USR modem on a regular phone line tonight.
Dane Jasper
: I just got a hold of a US Robotics 56K V92 external fax modem (USR5686E).
: But, I can't seem to get it to send a FAX on DSL. It is connected after
: the filter just like the telephone. Is this modem compatible with DSL?
It shouldn't matter - once the high frequency DSL signal is filtered out,
it's just a POTS line.
VoIP is the only line type where you're likely to see problems with
FAX/modem functionality.
--
Dane Jasper Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:da...@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net/
Key fingerprint = A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9 CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53
Adam
"Dane Jasper" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:481f69da$0$34551$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Are you sure? USR tech support says that
the 56K "analog" modem won't work with DSL. I also have
a Psion 56K + FAX Gold Card Global PC Card Modem which
works fine with DSL. Both modems are
connected in a similar way, through the filter.
Anyone know whether the Gold Card Global is a digital modem?
Is that why one works but not the other?
Dane Jasper
: the 56K "analog" modem won't work with DSL. I also have
: a Psion 56K + FAX Gold Card Global PC Card Modem which
: works fine with DSL. Both modems are
: connected in a similar way, through the filter.
: Anyone know whether the Gold Card Global is a digital modem?
: Is that why one works but not the other?
It sounds like USR support MIGHT be confused.
A POTS phone line is a POTS phone line, DSL or not once the DSL signal is
filtered out. There's really no way that I can imagine that the modem could
know the difference.
Adam
I think you might be right about USR tech support.
I just tested the 56K USR modem with a regular phone line.
I think the modem might be crippled.