False advertising by DSLExtreme - no spam filters!
Kevin McMurtrie
entered the IP addresses of several mail servers (mostly Comcast and
Bellsouth) being used by infected Wintels. Mail from those servers
still comes through. I've also turned on features to reject poorly
formatted headers. Viruses with malformed headers still come through.
Tech support guy #1 said he'd have the e-mail guys call. No call. Tech
support guy #2 said spam filtering isn't a feature. Tech support guy #3
said I should change my e-mail address. Maybe there's some quirk in
their instructions and I've configured the settings wrong. Who knows?
Tech support hasn't looked at it.
Is there any South Bay DSL ISP that does MTA level filtering? If I have
to change my e-mail address, it might as well have a new domain too.
Philip J. Koenig
mcmu...@dslextreme.com (Kevin McMurtrie) writes...
I believe Garlic.com was advertising something like this.
However I should mention that I personally would not consider an
ISP which does not block traffic from MTA's which are "being used
by infected Wintels" to have "no spam filters".
Virtually every ISP of any size whatsoever has customers which
are infected by the latest Windoze trojan-du-jour. I for one
would not be interested in *my* ISP blocking traffic from every
MTA that serves such customers. Number one, it's not a reasonable
expectation that ISPs will never have trojan-infected customers,
number two such practices are heavy-handed and the problem is not
email connectivity, the problem is in descending order:
1) Windows flaws
2) Clueless users
3) Whining recipients who want someone else to solve their
malware problems for them
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Philip J. Koenig
mcmu...@dslextreme.com (Kevin McMurtrie) writes...
> to change my e-mail address, it might as well have a new domain too.
BTW, there are a variety of companies that offer email filtering
services. I think it's time for you to consider paying them
for such a service. Here's a big list of them:
http://www.spamcon.org/directories/filtered-mailboxes.shtml
George Mealer
news:MPG.19e02b77a...@corp.supernews.com:
> However I should mention that I personally would not consider an
> ISP which does not block traffic from MTA's which are "being used
> by infected Wintels" to have "no spam filters".
It sounded like he manually entered the IPs. I assume DSLExtreme has
specific facilities to allow this (which are, apparently, less than
functional).
Geo
--
George Mealer
geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com
"Alright, it's Saturday night...I have no date, a two-liter bottle
of Shasta, and my all-Rush mix tape. Let's rock!" -- Philip J. Fry
Philip J. Koenig
(George Mealer) writes...
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
> news:MPG.19e02b77a...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > However I should mention that I personally would not consider an
> > ISP which does not block traffic from MTA's which are "being used
> > by infected Wintels" to have "no spam filters".
>
> It sounded like he manually entered the IPs. I assume DSLExtreme has
> specific facilities to allow this (which are, apparently, less than
> functional).
True, it does sound like they're a little confused about how their
own system works.
Which brings up a past suggestion to Kevin: running his own email
server. It seems that either this, or subscribing to one of the
commercial filtering services, is likely the only way to meet his
expectations.
John Higdon
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> Which brings up a past suggestion to Kevin: running his own email
> server. It seems that either this, or subscribing to one of the
> commercial filtering services, is likely the only way to meet his
> expectations.
Let him eat cake?
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
Philip J. Koenig
absolutel...@verislimesucks.com (John Higdon) writes...
> In article <MPG.19e044d82...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Which brings up a past suggestion to Kevin: running his own email
> > server. It seems that either this, or subscribing to one of the
> > commercial filtering services, is likely the only way to meet his
> > expectations.
>
> Let him eat cake?
No, not at all. He just has extremely specific desires in respect
to how his ISP handles email blocking, and I doubt that any ISP
is going to be able to consistently keep him happy in that way.
(Sonic couldn't, and ended up booting him over his actions)
It was actually a very practical suggestion. In another popular
Higdon incarnation, I would have expected you to be waxing effusively
about all the reasons to run one's own MTA, just like Higdon the
'ol hayseed decided to do way back when while on the farm.
JC Dill
<mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>Is there any South Bay DSL ISP that does MTA level filtering? If I have
>to change my e-mail address, it might as well have a new domain too.
Sonic apparently has email filtering that can be turned on or off per
email address, and you can do your own filtering in procmail etc. I
haven't tried it, but the discussion on the sonic newsgroups makes it
sound like it's easy to use and effective.
jc
John Higdon
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> It was actually a very practical suggestion. In another popular
> Higdon incarnation, I would have expected you to be waxing effusively
> about all the reasons to run one's own MTA, just like Higdon the
> 'ol hayseed decided to do way back when while on the farm.
Oh, no. You have fully convinced me that no one should have to take
matters into his own hands for anything, ever. Internet providers should
always provide exactly what one wants, just the way one wants it, all
the time.
By the way, I never claimed to be stupid, just not a self-proclaimed
expert or network professional.
Don't underestimate the intelligence of hayseeds.
Kevin McMurtrie
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Xns94048B947379...@208.201.224.154>,
> g...@snarksoft.invalid
> (George Mealer) writes...
> > Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
> > news:MPG.19e02b77a...@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> > > However I should mention that I personally would not consider an
> > > ISP which does not block traffic from MTA's which are "being used
> > > by infected Wintels" to have "no spam filters".
> >
> > It sounded like he manually entered the IPs. I assume DSLExtreme has
> > specific facilities to allow this (which are, apparently, less than
> > functional).
>
>
> True, it does sound like they're a little confused about how their
> own system works.
>
> Which brings up a past suggestion to Kevin: running his own email
> server. It seems that either this, or subscribing to one of the
> commercial filtering services, is likely the only way to meet his
> expectations.
I could run my own mail server but I would prefer the reliability of a
remotely hosted mail server. SBC is the local telco. Enough said.
Sonic and I didn't get along when it came to spam handling, that's true.
DSLExtreme appeared to have exactly what I was looking for. Now that I
need their mail filtering, it turns out that it is unsupported.
Considering how much time it takes SBC to switch DSL, you can imagine
that I'm not happy at all that I may need to switch again.
Kevin McMurtrie
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mcmurtri-9C9525...@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
> mcmu...@dslextreme.com (Kevin McMurtrie) writes...
> > DSLExtreme is advertising spam filtering but it's non-operational. I've
> > entered the IP addresses of several mail servers (mostly Comcast and
> > Bellsouth) being used by infected Wintels. Mail from those servers
> > still comes through. I've also turned on features to reject poorly
> > formatted headers. Viruses with malformed headers still come through.
> >
> > Tech support guy #1 said he'd have the e-mail guys call. No call. Tech
> > support guy #2 said spam filtering isn't a feature. Tech support guy #3
> > said I should change my e-mail address. Maybe there's some quirk in
> > their instructions and I've configured the settings wrong. Who knows?
> > Tech support hasn't looked at it.
> >
> > Is there any South Bay DSL ISP that does MTA level filtering? If I have
> > to change my e-mail address, it might as well have a new domain too.
>
>
> I believe Garlic.com was advertising something like this.
>
> However I should mention that I personally would not consider an
> ISP which does not block traffic from MTA's which are "being used
> by infected Wintels" to have "no spam filters".
I turned on a variety of filtering options, both custom ones and
DSLExtreme's. Each one should have been highly effective but none are
operational. It would be no different if it was spam.
ab...@mix.com
> I could run my own mail server but I would prefer the reliability of a
> remotely hosted mail server. SBC is the local telco. Enough said.
Well.. Panix is $10 a month (or $100 a year) and they have just about
anything anyone could want for handling spam.
Of course they can't do dsl for you, but if you want reliable remotely
hosted email they can definitely handle that - I've used them for some
time now and the service there is quite good.
Are you going to find what you want all from the same one vendor?
Not likely...
> DSLExtreme appeared to have exactly what I was looking for. Now that I
> need their mail filtering, it turns out that it is unsupported.
Too bad - after all that's been said about them here I was hoping
they'd be better...
Billy Y..
John Higdon
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I could run my own mail server but I would prefer the reliability of a
> remotely hosted mail server. SBC is the local telco. Enough said.
Not quite. Why is someone else's email server necessarily more reliable
than yours? My SBC DSL (and before that, frame relay drop) has
experienced virtually 100% reliability (except for the time the
squirrels made a home in the b-box, but that was the only outage). Just
judging from comments here, I would say that one's own email server
would run reliability rings about any of the popular providers.
> Considering how much time it takes SBC to switch DSL, you can imagine
> that I'm not happy at all that I may need to switch again.
And I'll repeat Navas' suggestion (cuz I use it myself for nearly all
telecommunications):
Have the new DSL installed before your take out the old.
Kevin McMurtrie
<absolutely-no-spam-0...@equine.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <absolutel...@verislimesucks.com> wrote:
> In article <mcmurtri-498933...@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > I could run my own mail server but I would prefer the reliability of a
> > remotely hosted mail server. SBC is the local telco. Enough said.
>
> Not quite. Why is someone else's email server necessarily more reliable
> than yours? My SBC DSL (and before that, frame relay drop) has
> experienced virtually 100% reliability (except for the time the
> squirrels made a home in the b-box, but that was the only outage). Just
> judging from comments here, I would say that one's own email server
> would run reliability rings about any of the popular providers.
You don't live near downtown San Jose. External wire failures have been
common on my line and it usually takes SBC 5 to 10 days to fix them.
Last year was also plagued by a mysterious vanishing carrier.
Frustrated neighbors have experimented with Comcast and wireless service
without better results.
> > Considering how much time it takes SBC to switch DSL, you can imagine
> > that I'm not happy at all that I may need to switch again.
>
> And I'll repeat Navas' suggestion (cuz I use it myself for nearly all
> telecommunications):
>
> Have the new DSL installed before your take out the old.
I ordered DSLExtreme five days before asking Sonic to drop my DSL. SBC
screwed up the switch-over. One week was no-sync and two more were
sync-no-surf. It must have taken 5 hours of tech support calls before
they escalated the problem to a real DSL technician.
John Higdon
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> You don't live near downtown San Jose. External wire failures have been
> common on my line and it usually takes SBC 5 to 10 days to fix them.
Actually, I DO live rather near downtown San Jose, with outside wire
plant that is in much worse shape than anything found in the spiffy new
downtown. Nevertheless, I can't believe we are talking about the same
SBC. What few trouble calls I have made in the past couple of years have
resulted in technicians being dispatched on the same day, and no later
than the next day. The bit with the squirrels was handled within eight
hours from the time I made the call to repair.
> Last year was also plagued by a mysterious vanishing carrier.
> Frustrated neighbors have experimented with Comcast and wireless service
> without better results.
That's very odd. My downtown SF office has had no failures of any kind
in two years. None. We're talking many individual T1s...all fine, all
the time. My home, with some of the most decrepit outside plant in the
region (I was told that over half the pairs in the nearby feeder cable
were defective), enjoys wonderful service. Certainly more reliable
service that what I'm hearing about email servers provided for the
public.
> I ordered DSLExtreme five days before asking Sonic to drop my DSL. SBC
> screwed up the switch-over. One week was no-sync and two more were
> sync-no-surf. It must have taken 5 hours of tech support calls before
> they escalated the problem to a real DSL technician.
I still don't understand. How does SBC have a "switch-over" if you order
two separate services? The last time I changed providers, I was the one
who had to move the RJ-45 from one line to the other...and of course
both were fully functional at the time of the switch. If the new line
isn't working, you don't leave the old one.
Kevin McMurtrie
<absolutely-no-spam-D...@equine.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <absolutel...@verislimesucks.com> wrote:
> In article <mcmurtri-0B2E9C...@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > You don't live near downtown San Jose. External wire failures have been
> > common on my line and it usually takes SBC 5 to 10 days to fix them.
>
> Actually, I DO live rather near downtown San Jose, with outside wire
> plant that is in much worse shape than anything found in the spiffy new
> downtown. Nevertheless, I can't believe we are talking about the same
> SBC. What few trouble calls I have made in the past couple of years have
> resulted in technicians being dispatched on the same day, and no later
> than the next day. The bit with the squirrels was handled within eight
> hours from the time I made the call to repair.
>
> > Last year was also plagued by a mysterious vanishing carrier.
> > Frustrated neighbors have experimented with Comcast and wireless service
> > without better results.
>
> That's very odd. My downtown SF office has had no failures of any kind
> in two years. None. We're talking many individual T1s...all fine, all
> the time. My home, with some of the most decrepit outside plant in the
> region (I was told that over half the pairs in the nearby feeder cable
> were defective), enjoys wonderful service. Certainly more reliable
> service that what I'm hearing about email servers provided for the
> public.
Must be luck. I've encountered many SBC techs that are incompetent and
as anti-helpful as possible. That's where all of the delays are. Once
I get in touch with somebody good, things move along very quickly.
The usual failure mode here is static, an intermittent connection, and
then an open circuit. It seems that the cables sag so much that the
wires pop out or they get hit by trucks.
> > I ordered DSLExtreme five days before asking Sonic to drop my DSL. SBC
> > screwed up the switch-over. One week was no-sync and two more were
> > sync-no-surf. It must have taken 5 hours of tech support calls before
> > they escalated the problem to a real DSL technician.
>
> I still don't understand. How does SBC have a "switch-over" if you order
> two separate services? The last time I changed providers, I was the one
> who had to move the RJ-45 from one line to the other...and of course
> both were fully functional at the time of the switch. If the new line
> isn't working, you don't leave the old one.
Switching DSL service on one phone line. SBC takes their sweet time
unless you're switching to them.
John Higdon
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmu...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Switching DSL service on one phone line. SBC takes their sweet time
> unless you're switching to them.
Ah, see I have never done that. I have had completely new service
(including the phone line that handles the DSL) up and running before
disconnecting the old service. In other words, I have two services at
once.
In my last cutover, I was using both services for several weeks,
leisurely migrating my hosts from one to the other. My incoming provider
graciously gatewayed all outgoing so I was able to have key hosts talk
on both wires at once. It was all a snooze.
ab...@mix.com
> Ah, see I have never done that. I have had completely new service
> (including the phone line that handles the DSL) up and running before
> disconnecting the old service. In other words, I have two services at
> once.
I've had as many as three (Savvis, Sprint & Alternet) running here
all at the same time, heh... Alternet is the only one who didn't
screw up with my addressing and/or routing though.
Billy Y..