pop.att.yahoo.com
Cal Tinson
working fine (using a Comcast connection). Anyone else?
Patrick Phillips
Yes using Verizon DSL I was getting connection refused pop.att.yahoo.com
from about 4am until about 7:10am CT, I'm guessing routine maintenance
lasted longer than expected.
--
Patrick
Cal Tinson
Thanks, Patrick!
NormanM
> Getting connection refused error this morning although web mail is
> working fine (using a Comcast connection). Anyone else?
Without checking my Mercury/32 logs, I can't say. Mercury/32 polls my 'at&t
Yahoo! HSI' accounts. On any one log in error, it just moves on to the next
account. Poll cycle is every thirty minutes. Email is downloaded from the
local server, so the local client never sees any log in issues. Very nice.
When I have checked my Mercury/32 logs in the past (when people were
complaining about log in problems), I've seen one, or another, server has
caused an error; but never more than one server per polling cycle, and
rarely one error per cycle. Most common is about 6 errors per day. So I
surmise that the servers occasionally choke, but on a fairly intermittent
basis. Not enough to be noticeable when running a local mail server which
polls the remote POP3 accounts.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Cal Tinson
Hi, Norman - Turned out to be a Yahoo problem. In addition to Patrick, a
number of folk in the DSLReports forum were seeing it.
NormanM
> Hi, Norman - Turned out to be a Yahoo problem. In addition to Patrick, a
> number of folk in the DSLReports forum were seeing it.
And, for the DSLR forum, I scanned my Mercury/32 logs for the last four
days. I found a total of six password errors in about 369 polling cycles (11
accounts polled per cycle). So, if there was a problem, it was probably
localize, because I didn't see evidence on the West Coast.
norm
issues discussed in mozilla.support.seamonkey. I am using firebird on
linux. If I change to port 110, I can connect with no issue. Stupid
move, if true, by att. :(
Subject: Att/Seamonkey/ssl
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but they
Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must use port
110 ( No security). Which does not make any sense to me .
This is True With this computer With 2.0 installed
Same with my wife's computer with ver 1.1.18
Same with my Daughters computer , Ver 1.1.17
None of the above can use SSL
Anyone else running into this problem? I am in the Flint, Mi area .
--
norm
norm
--
norm
Patrick Phillips
says...
> Still getting server access issues again today that mirror the following
> issues discussed in mozilla.support.seamonkey. I am using firebird on
> linux. If I change to port 110, I can connect with no issue. Stupid
> move, if true, by att. :(
>
> Subject: Att/Seamonkey/ssl
> Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
> No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but they
> Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must use port
> 110 ( No security). Which does not make any sense to me .
> This is True With this computer With 2.0 installed
> Same with my wife's computer with ver 1.1.18
> Same with my Daughters computer , Ver 1.1.17
> None of the above can use SSL
> Anyone else running into this problem? I am in the Flint, Mi area .
>
> --
> norm
>
>
This is from "alt.att" group and mirrors your copy I think...I wasn't
really following this issue?. anyway there were these two posts in alt.att
newsgroup on the same subject.
======================================
Subject: Re: att/Seamonkey/ssl
From: Arnie Goetchius <arnie.g...@invalid.domain>
Newsgroups: alt.att
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:33:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4)
Gecko/20091017 SeaMonkey/2.0
Message-ID: <he9br9$17h$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
FYI - Here is a copy of an ongoing thread at the NG
mozilla.support.seamonkey. I tried to cross post but it wouldn't work.
Bush wrote:
> Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
> No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but
they Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must use
port
> 110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any sense to me .
> This is True With this computer With 2.0 installed
> Same with my wife's omputer with ver 1.1.18
> Same with my Daughters computer , Ver 1.1.17
>
> None of the above can use SSL
>
> Anyone else running into this problem? I am in the Flint, Mi area .
>
Which AT&T version are using? I have Worldnet as do others replying here
and it works fine. My daughter just went from AT&T DSL to AT&T Uverse in
TX and they wanted her to change to att yahoo but she insisted on
staying with Worldnet. Worldnet users will have a POP3 of
imailhost.worldnet.att.net port 995 whereas Yahoo ATT will have a POP3
of pop.att.yahoo.com port 995 or something similar.
Which do you have or is it something else?
In the near future AT&T will be turning Worldnet off and replacing it
with something called "AT&T Internet Service" which I suspect to be AT&T
Yahoo. Thus, while I don't have your problem now, I may have it in the
future which would mean using port 110 and no SSL in order to use
Seamonkey.
==========================================
and now Norm the reply to above reply...
==========================================
Subject: Re: att/Seamonkey/ssl
From: Arnie Goetchius <arnie.g...@invalid.domain>
Newsgroups: alt.att
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:12:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4)
Gecko/20091017 SeaMonkey/2.0
Message-ID: <he9ol2$jpd$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
His immediate problem was that he didn't set the account up properly
because he didn't use the proper password but now has it working
properly. However, the "ignorant U-verse employee" still told him that
ATT would only work on OE. As I recall, that's what I was told in the
last millenium when I called the 800-400-???? number.
============================================
That is all there was Norm just these 2 posts, but it sounds like same
issue your talking of?
--
Patrick in IL.
norm
and also in the windows vista mail group. A statement was made in one of
the groups that the issue was just with mozilla products having to
change back to port 110 rather than ssl and 995. However, I had to make
the same port change on windows mail in order to fetch mail from the
pop.att.yahoo.com server. Looks to be a configuration issue on the att
end, and who knows when it will be figured out. I would have no problem
suggesting the change to the 110 port for a time and periodically
checking using the ssl and port 995 setting for any fix. It is, though,
noteworthy to say that the issue is not static, it comes and goes, at
least for me.
--
norm
NormanM
> Cal Tinson wrote:
Not at all. And they must be full of it to declare an unsupportable
incompatibility:
Outbound:
| Received: from smtp125.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.65.184]) by bay0-mc2-f38.Bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
| Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:05:53 -0800
| Received: (qmail 47476 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2009 06:05:53 -0000
| Received: from adsl-69-105-118-41.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net (nsmi...@69.105.118.41 with plain)
| by smtp125.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2009 22:05:53 -0800 PST
| Message-ID: <4B08D42F...@aosake.net>
| Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:03:27 -0800
| From: "Proper Name" <********@pacbell.net>
| Organization: at&t Yahoo! HSI
| User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091017 NOT Firefox/2.0 SeaMonkey/2.0
As you can see, SeaMonkey 2.0 handled the connection to
'smtp.att.yahoo.com:465' just fine. I selected the, "SSL/TLS" connection
security option.
Inbound:
| X-Account-Key: account9
| X-UIDL: AJvHjkQAAM84SwjW3gIatljhxMo
| X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
| X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
| X-Mozilla-Keys:
| Received: from 207.115.20.126 (EHLO flpd116.prodigy.net) (207.115.20.126)
| by mta104.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:14:53 -0800
| X-Originating-IP: [65.54.190.91]
| Received: from bay0-omc2-s16.bay0.hotmail.com (msnbot-65-54-190-91.search.msn.com [65.54.190.91])
| by flpd116.prodigy.net (8.13.8 inb ipv6 jeff0203/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nAM6EqXR030649
| for <*********@pacbell.net>; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:14:52 -0800
| Received: from BAY109-DS2 ([65.54.190.125]) by bay0-omc2-s16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
| Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:14:52 -0800
| X-Originating-IP: [69.105.118.41]
| X-Originating-Email: [**********@hotmail.com]
| Message-ID: <BAY109-DS277FF894...@phx.gbl>
And SeaMonkey also handled the reply, using: 'pop.att.yahoo.com:995'. Again,
using the, "SSL/TLS" connection security option in SM.
If the Yahoo! servers work with another account, try a back and forth, and
look at the Yahoo! server names. As large as Yahoo! is, they may be having
troubles on localized servers. The ones here are:
Outgoing: 'smtp125.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com'
Incoming: ' mta104.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com'