Delibrate attemp to lose customers
Andy...@nospam.see.sig.co.uk
reasonable time which I consider to be less than 30 minutes at the worse
the speed of connection is not going to help things at all.
I am willing to pay for a better service but after years of being happy now
feel that friends who are using the free service are getting the same level
of service.
Pipex please keep your email working 24/7 as some of us do not work 9-5
Monday to Friday (Its called being self employed)
PS I only use PSTN to connect as I am usually travelling.
"JohnW" <heli...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>For all the slagging off Pipex is getting, this generic number gives me an
>increase of 15% in access speeds. It's OK for you guys who are on cable or
>BT digital but spare a thought for us who can't normally connect with a v90
>any faster that 36000 bps. When it works it's a joy to get speeds over
>40,000 bps
>
>JohnW
>xoe23 (formerly 9av33)
Chris Downs
Andy...@nospam.see.sig.co.uk wrote:
> I am sure it will be good but unless my email gets through to me within a
> reasonable time which I consider to be less than 30 minutes at the worse
> the speed of connection is not going to help things at all.
>
> I am willing to pay for a better service but after years of being happy now
> feel that friends who are using the free service are getting the same level
> of service.
>
> Pipex please keep your email working 24/7 as some of us do not work 9-5
> Monday to Friday (Its called being self employed)
>
> PS I only use PSTN to connect as I am usually travelling.
>
Your email doesn't only go through Pipex, it goes all over the place, so there
is no way you can say it is Pipex being slow. If your email gets sent via a slow
system then it's going to get delayed.
The number of Internet users in the UK has risen dramatically in the last year,
and the new "Free ISPs" are making the problem worse. It takes time to upgrade
all the systems to cope, so there is bound to be a general slow-down of the net.
As an example of the load that is present, on the IRC networks alone, the number
of users is now too great for the servers to cope with at peak times, and they
all start splitting and network lag can get as high as 10 minutes. (when you
consider the average lag between users is 2 to 4 seconds, this is extreme!).
As for the free ISPs, all the people I've spoken to who use them say that they
are terrible and are much slower than their pay-for accounts. I'd stick to Pipex
if were you.
--
Opinions are my own, not those of my employer.
home email: chris...@BLargonet.co.uk (remove the obvious to mail)
IRCNet on #argonet, #acorn as Xeno.
Dave Evans
Chris Downs <chris...@bogusemail.gecm.com> wrote in message
news:378085EE...@bogusemail.gecm.com...
>
>
> Your email doesn't only go through Pipex, it goes all over the place, so
there
> is no way you can say it is Pipex being slow. If your email gets sent via
a slow
> system then it's going to get delayed.
>
It doesn't apply if you send an email to yourself using only Pipex and it
takes 36 hours.
--
Dave Evans
Chris Downs
Dave Evans wrote:
> It doesn't apply if you send an email to yourself using only Pipex and it
> takes 36 hours.
Perhaps the was a large volume of email passing through the server in that
period?
And why did you email yourself? ;-)
Andrew Ducker
>
>
> Dave Evans wrote:
>
> > It doesn't apply if you send an email to yourself using only Pipex and
it
> > takes 36 hours.
>
> Perhaps the was a large volume of email passing through the server in that
> period?
Don't care. I want my email to get through to me (almost) instantly. I
don't want excuses and I don't want the same problem happening twice.
> And why did you email yourself? ;-)
I did it after I realised emails weren't getting through after 14 hours.
Andy D
Chris Downs
Andrew Ducker wrote:
>
>
> Don't care. I want my email to get through to me (almost) instantly. I
> don't want excuses and I don't want the same problem happening twice.
> <snip>
>
> I did it after I realised emails weren't getting through after 14 hours.
hmm, is anyone else getting this problem? I use pipex dial to connect, but my
mail is handled by Argonet, so I can't say whether it's the pipex mail server or
not.What is the hostname of the pipex mailserver? (it's possible I can use it
since my username is a pipex one).
Andy...@nospam.see.sig.co.uk
from 3 of my customers. On my recommendation they all use Pipex.
The delays I registered where huge as an example and email sent to me 08.17
on 29/06/99 was received by me at 07.30 on the 30/06/99. More importantly
and discovered only today at least one email I sent on the 30/06/99 was not
received by another Pipex user.
Like I said I am willing to pay for good service. If Pipex are overloading
their servers they need to get it sorted. All the problems I have been
getting seem to match the selling of Pipex bandwidth to other ISPs such as
Gateway.
Please note I am using my 3 years online with Pipex as the basis for my
complaint. It is getting worse (email) and I have until last week never
been in a position where I could not connect (Authenticating Server was
down until 08.59 am 22/06/99) and now the cardinal sin the loss of email.
Having said all that does anyone know of a better service ? maybe one that
can give guaranteed figures for up time ?
Andy
Chris Downs <chris...@bogusemail.gecm.com> wrote:
>
>
>Andy...@nospam.see.sig.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I am sure it will be good but unless my email gets through to me within a
>> reasonable time which I consider to be less than 30 minutes at the worse
>> the speed of connection is not going to help things at all.
>>
>> I am willing to pay for a better service but after years of being happy now
>> feel that friends who are using the free service are getting the same level
>> of service.
>>
>> Pipex please keep your email working 24/7 as some of us do not work 9-5
>> Monday to Friday (Its called being self employed)
>>
>> PS I only use PSTN to connect as I am usually travelling.
>>
>
>Your email doesn't only go through Pipex, it goes all over the place, so there
>is no way you can say it is Pipex being slow. If your email gets sent via a slow
>system then it's going to get delayed.
>
>The number of Internet users in the UK has risen dramatically in the last year,
>and the new "Free ISPs" are making the problem worse. It takes time to upgrade
>all the systems to cope, so there is bound to be a general slow-down of the net.
>
>As an example of the load that is present, on the IRC networks alone, the number
>of users is now too great for the servers to cope with at peak times, and they
>all start splitting and network lag can get as high as 10 minutes. (when you
>consider the average lag between users is 2 to 4 seconds, this is extreme!).
>
>As for the free ISPs, all the people I've spoken to who use them say that they
>are terrible and are much slower than their pay-for accounts. I'd stick to Pipex
>if were you.
--
"To send Andy Moore an email use jz94 @ dial.pipex.com
Any Spam,UCE,Junk Mail will be traced and reported
to all the upstream providers."
Alastair Steel
this reply:
-Thank you for this message.
-Due to a recent, very large, spamming issue the mailservers suffered delays
-in delivering incoming mail. Outgoing mail (email you may have sent) was
-not affected.
-The Postmaster and the Systems Administrators have corrected the problem
-and email should be arriving normally. However, it is possible some of
-the older mail will be delayed for a short period of time.
-I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.
I believe I have still not received some mail. Clearly there has been a
problem and I expect and hope that it will be resolved - I haven't had
connection problems (not that are worse than any of my other ISP accounts)
This next comment may or may not be related.........
I worry about ISP wars and expect more vicious battles in the future - there
is a long way to go before we fully understand this new marketplace and
appropriate controls and balances established.
AJS
Andy...@nospam.see.sig.co.uk wrote in message
<3784e5fd...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
Steve Peake
>
>
> Andrew Ducker wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Don't care. I want my email to get through to me (almost) instantly. I
> > don't want excuses and I don't want the same problem happening twice.
> > <snip>
> >
> > I did it after I realised emails weren't getting through after 14 hours.
>
> hmm, is anyone else getting this problem? I use pipex dial to connect, but
my
> mail is handled by Argonet, so I can't say whether it's the pipex mail
server or
> not.What is the hostname of the pipex mailserver? (it's possible I can use
it
> since my username is a pipex one).
My mail seems okay, I still push about 100 per day through several pipex
accounts. I have to say that most of your assumptions about how mail flow
works between ISP's (post above) is wrong though, between a big player like
UUNET mail delivery normally has very short paths.
Steve
Chris Downs
Steve Peake wrote:
> My mail seems okay, I still push about 100 per day through several pipex
> accounts. I have to say that most of your assumptions about how mail flow
> works between ISP's (post above) is wrong though, between a big player like
> UUNET mail delivery normally has very short paths.
I made those comments before I realised the problem was with emails sent to
other pipex users.
Mail sent outside UUNET is likely to take an more indirect route. eg UUNET to
Demon or BT
But let's not go off topic ;-)
Dave Evans
> Perhaps the was a large volume of email passing through the server in that
> period?
>
large volume?
> And why did you email yourself? ;-)
It is the standard test to do when no mail arrives to check whether Pipex
are working.
If it doesn't arrive in a few minutes then I have to phone my customers and
tell them that my email is down (again).
--
Dave Evans
Chris Downs
Dave Evans wrote:
> Chris Downs <chris...@bogusemail.gecm.com> wrote in message
> news:3780A9C8...@bogusemail.gecm.com...
> > Perhaps the was a large volume of email passing through the server in that
> > period?
> >
> I fail to see how a 'large volume' would create a 36 hour delay. What is a
> large volume?
Well, as we now know, it was due to a large spam, which is quite definitive
evidence that a large number of emails will slow down the server. (And it's also
really quite obvious, as the more load you put on a system, the slower it goes).
Steve Davies
> Well, as we now know, it was due to a large spam, which is quite definitive
> evidence that a large number of emails will slow down the server. (And it's also
> really quite obvious, as the more load you put on a system, the slower it goes).
Spam is also different from regular mails. Many are for non-existant
accounts - so they need to be bounced. Unfortunately, the from addresses
are forged, so the bounces sit in the queue trying to be sent.
Eventually, they are doubled bounced which means a third delivery. So
upwards of 10 times the typical work processing a normal delivery.
Of course we must make sure that this doesn't happen again - we are trying
to find a defense that doesn't affect legitimate delivery of mail to our
users.
Steve
sukey1
address is invalid - thereby eliminating spam? An adaptation could be to
provide your users an option where by this is done by Pipex at the request
of their users?. Surely there are options?
Cheers
sukey
Chris Stratford
"sukey1" <ss@@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> Is it not possible to reject the message at source is the originating
> address is invalid - thereby eliminating spam?
We can (and do) reject anything that comes from an invalid domain, but
that doesn't stop the junk mailers from using invalid usernames at
valid domains. These can't be stopped, as we don't know whether the
username is valid (except for local users of course).
Chris.
sukey1
Whats next ? Accept defeat? or find a solution?
Sukey
Andrew Ducker
sukey1 <ss@@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7lvb9i$7p5$2...@lure.pipex.net...
> Is it not possible to reject the message at source is the originating
> provide your users an option where by this is done by Pipex at the request
> of their users?. Surely there are options?
What about people with 'spam protected' email addresses?
And checking the originating address is not that easy. The DNS can be
correct, but the address itself might not be.
Andy D
Chris Downs
Andrew Ducker wrote:
This thread has reminded me of something useful that appears to be in place
here.
A few days ago someone sent a spam to one of the other newsgroups I read, but I
only knew it existed because of the numerous complaints posted in reply. It
seems the system here can filter out spam somehow, perhaps a similar system
exists for email? Though I haven't got a clue as to how it is achieved.
(probably some little guy locked away in a small room that goes through all the
postings as they come in... ;-) )
Perhaps they just have a filter on AOL, which is where the spam came from.
Ideas/comments anyone?
Chris Stratford
"sukey1" <ss@@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> Whats next ? Accept defeat? or find a solution?
Accept defeat? Never. But technical solutions aren't always the best
way to solve a problem.
Chris.
jvbe...@no-spam.dsl.nl
> only knew it existed because of the numerous complaints posted in reply. It
> seems the system here can filter out spam somehow, perhaps a similar system
> exists for email?
Like http://maps.vix.com/ maybe?
There are a number of very simmilar services, from mild to very
agressive.
Jasper
Steve Davies
> Is it not possible to reject the message at source is the originating
> address is invalid - thereby eliminating spam? An adaptation could be to
> provide your users an option where by this is done by Pipex at the request
> of their users?. Surely there are options?
We do refuse mail where the envelope-from is clearly invalid (domain
doesn't exist). Unfortuantely, the address can be valid to the extent of
"existing" but still not possible to deliver to it.
Steve
Chris Stratford
"Andrew Ducker" <And...@Landmaster.co.uk> writes:
>
> sukey1 <ss@@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:7lvb9i$7p5$2...@lure.pipex.net...
>> address is invalid - thereby eliminating spam? An adaptation could be to
>> provide your users an option where by this is done by Pipex at the request
>> of their users?. Surely there are options?
>
Which does beg the question:
Why would you "spam protect" an email message to someone? You know
who you're sending it to. If you don't trust them not to misuse your
email address why are you sending it to them in the first place?
I can see it has a certain (limited) benefit in newsgroup postings,
but it doesn't make any sense in email (unless you are trying to do
something less than legal and want to hide your tracks, which is not
going to be very successful either given the amount of other
information added to any email headers by almost any system they
travel through).
Chris.
Chris Downs
jvbe...@no-spam.dsl.nl wrote:
> Like http://maps.vix.com/ maybe?
> There are a number of very simmilar services, from mild to very
> agressive.
I don't have exteral access here, so I can't check that just yet.
Going back to the slow emails, I'm sure you'll all be really please to hear that, the
day before yesterday, a very kind American decided it would be awfully helpful to cut
through some of America's major cables. This means that about 90% of American
internet "traffic" was (and possibly still is) being routed through the UK.
Wonderful! not. ;-(