Rosie
@pacbell.net
| reply to gdm
Re: Where did my spam go?
said by gdm  :said by :
This isn't a ATT problem it's yahoo's. Yahoo controls the mail not ATT. So the ATT techs really have no clue what is going on. (Can't figure out the brackets for quoting just the response...) I have had several live chats with techs at the AT&T Yahoo website (where I receive my sbcglobal.net webmail) and they don't have a clue either. From the articles I've read, it appears to be AT&T that changed their spam filters(?) Read RWRickert's response to me on page 5 of this thread about the connection between Yahoo and AT&T. |
|
gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·Comcast Digital Vo..
 ·Comcast
| That could be, I just came back to ATT/SBC what ever name it is this month. I never really used the email for anything when I had dsl. I just prefer to use my own domain to make life simpler.
Hopefully who ever is at fault which it sounds like a combo of the two it gets fixed. |
|
dxiv
join:2005-04-12
Wheaton, IL
| reply to David
said by David :send that to the removeme@sbc.sbcglobal.net address. They will need that info. David, thanks for chiming in. I sent an email with the bounced message attached, just in case it reaches a human. If it's a robot, then I doubt it helps, since it will carry my IP, not the original sender's. I doubt that even having the sender forward it would help, since the quoted blocked IP is that of the ISP's email server, not his own IP. And FWIW upc/chello is a quite large broadband provider in Europe. It would be a sad day if their servers had to be rescued off ameritech's blacklist by a private retired person in his mid-seventies (who happens to be my father).
That said, I'll keep the fingers crossed, since there isn't much else I can do anyway. |
|
Richmstl
@sbcglobal.net | reply to nwrickert
I had 2 different chats with ATT/Yahoo! and asked about the reduction in spam - Mine was reduced from 100+ to about 7 daily. Both techs denied any changes on their end. |
|
Rosie
@pacbell.net
| reply to dxiv
said by dxiv :said by : :
It would be a sad day if their servers had to be rescued off ameritech's blacklist by a private retired person in his mid-seventies (who happens to be my father). Go DXIV's Dad! I haven't gotten any bulk mail for days now which scares me. There's nothing more I can do now other than switch IP's I guess. Then my emails might be blocked to AT&T domains. Choosing the lesser of two evils is our only choice it seems... |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Rosie
Re: List of domain names
said by Rosie :
Here is a list of AT&T domain names(not sure how current this is though):
bellsouth.net (MX server run by AT&T Worldnet Services)
worldnet.att.net (MX server run by AT&T Worldnet Services)
ameritech.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
att.net (MX server run by AT&T Worldnet Services)
flash.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
nvbell.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
pacbell.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
prodigy.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
sbcglobal.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
snet.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
wans.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
swbell.net (MX server run by AT&T Internet Services)
I am correct on this? (Again, not a techie -- just a struggling civilian here.)
AT&T Internet Services used to be SBC Internet Services (before SBC bought AT&T, and changed the corporate branding).
The 'bellsouth.net' domain was independent of anything SBC, or AT&T until AT&T bought Bellsouth.
I don't know that the 'worldnet.att.net' domain will ever be used with DSL service.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to nwrickert
said by nwrickert :I think bellsouth.net, att.net, worldnet.att.net are being handled by different servers, so I am not sure whether it applies to them. What I am seeing makes me think that AT&T Worldnet Services MX policies ('worldnet.att.net', att.net', and 'bellsouth.net') are now being applied to AT&T Internet Services MX servers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to gdm
Re: Where did my spam go?
said by gdm :This isn't a ATT problem it's yahoo's. Yahoo controls the mail not ATT. So the ATT techs really have no clue what is going on. Depends. All 'att.net' and 'bellsouth.net' email is handled by AT&T Worlndnet Services MX servers. All 'ameritech.net', 'flash.net', 'nvbell.net', 'pacbell.net', 'prodigy.net', 'sbcglobal.net', snet.net', 'swbell.net', and 'wans.net' email is handled by AT&T Internet Services MX servers.
If a customer is a migrated, or new at&t Yahoo! HSI customer, email is handed off from AT&T MX servers to Yahoo! MDAs (Mail Delivery Agents). But any policies applied at the MX server are AT&T policies.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Rosie
@pacbell.net
| reply to NormanS
Re: List of domain names
Thank you NormanS for the clarification on the AT&T domain names. I'm unclear about the "handed off" thing. Does that mean that the spam filters are applied at the AT&T MX server first such that some emails may be deleted or bounced back before they can get "handed off" to the Yahoo servers? Are the emails that get through being filtered again at Yahoo? I don't understand the terminology well enough to follow the explanations. I'll have to do some reading online in order to understand the messages in this thread. I was a comp. sci. major in college in the '80's -- 3 classes shy of a B.S. when I had to drop out for health reasons -- but I never actually worked in the field. The Internet was not in widespread use at that time, that I can recall. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Does that mean that the spam filters are applied at the AT&T MX server first such that some emails may be deleted or bounced back before they can get "handed off" to the Yahoo servers? That is my understanding of what is happening, based on the evidence thus far. Unfortunately AT&T has not given official information about this.
Are the emails that get through being filtered again at Yahoo? Yes, but the Yahoo filtering mainly is for deciding what goes into your bulk folder.
And yes, things have changed a lot since the 80s.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.13 |
|
dxiv
join:2005-04-12
Wheaton, IL
| reply to David
Re: Where did my spam go?
said by David :send that [bounced message with full headers] to the removeme@sbc.sbcglobal.net address. They will need that info. I got the reply from "AT&T Internet Services Security Center" to "please try resending your message" (a bit off the mark, since it wasn't my message which was being bounced to begin with). Anyway, something did change for the better, and the previously bounced emails now get through to my inbox (using the same server on the sending side which was "blocked" before). Thank you, and I hope this case is closed for good. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Rosie
Re: List of domain names
Email messages in the Pegasus Mail client. | 
Email address in the Yahoo! Mail Options. |
said by Rosie :
Thank you NormanS for the clarification on the AT&T domain names. I'm unclear about the "handed off" thing. Does that mean that the spam filters are applied at the AT&T MX server first such that some emails may be deleted or bounced back before they can get "handed off" to the Yahoo servers?
Based on some tests I did a while ago, the AT&T MX servers do some basic filtering by DNSBL, and similar criteria. Email will either be accepted, or rejected a this point. Rejected email results in a "bounce" generated by the sending relay client (if that relay client is a spamming 'bot, no "bounce" is generated). Accepted email is forwarded to Yahoo! Mail Delivery Agents for placement in the user's mailbox.
Are the emails that get through being filtered again at Yahoo?
Yes. The Yahoo! MDAs provide additional filtering based on the criteria established for SpamGuard. Nearly as I can tell, no "bounces" are generated at this point; rather, email is either routed to the Inbox, or the Bulk folder. This is actually a "Good Thing®" because a "bounce" generated at this point could only go to the Return_Path email address; in spam this is forged, or fake, about 99% of the time. This would result in "backscatter": Sending "bounces" to uninvolved parties.
Just an example of what you should see in this process:
The "Received" line at the bottom of the list is reporting my client connection (Windows Live Mail) to a Windows Live Mail account.
The "Received" line in the middle is the ATTIS MX server for the 'pacbell.net' domain accepting the email from the 'live.com' SMTP relay agent. This is where the initial filtering will take place; and the "accept/reject" decision would be made.
The "Received" line at the top is the Yahoo! MDA for this 'pacbell.net' account. This is where the filtering decision for "Inbox/Bulk" will take place.
By comparison, here is a straight Yahoo! email address. These headers from a 'yahoo.com' email address added to that 'pacbell.net' account as an "Extra" email address through the Mail Options:
This was picked up by the same account. You will see that this time the email goes straight to the Yahoo! server, bypassing the ATTIS server.
The screen shots show both email messages in the client folder, and the Yahoo! Mail Options screen where the extra accounts are set up.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Rosie
@pacbell.net | AT&T and Yahoo servers
Wow, NormanS, thank you so much for the very detailed answer, with screen shots and all. I skimmed it for now and will study it later when I have the time. Very enlightening, thank you. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| For those that are needing it, here is the err553 document and details. |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | Email domains w/Disposable or Wildcard Addresses now a PITA
I'd like to point out that the error 553 document and »help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/o···-07.html URL describe a procedure that only works with the "Classic Mail" interface. It also fails to work with email domains that provide disposable/wildcard addresses.
I run my own email server. I have my own version of Disposable Email Addresses that works similar to how wildcard email domains work. The "error 553" change now requires that I "Verify" every single unique email address that I expect to originate email from by going though a configuration page on the AT+T Yahoo Email configuration web site. That is going to be nearly impossible to automate with my email domain(s) that provide wildcard and/or disposable email addresses.
What I'd like to propose is that domains can be added and validated such that *@mydomain.com is acceptable not just oneaddress@mydomain.com. (Where "*" represents that any email address user is valid.)
Therefore, I propose that on the "Step 2: Enter Email Address" page, "Name:" be allowed to be "postmaster@mydomain.com" and "Email:" be allowed to be "*@mydomain.com" so that postmaster@mydomain.com is responsible for all email originated as *@mydomain.com for my AT+T Yahoo email credentials. The "verification" email would be sent to postmaster@mydomain.com. If AT+T Yahoo would require me to implement DomainKeys or DKIM, I'd be glad to enter that information as a part of the configuration process for getting wildcard domains approved.
Can you help get this change to allow wildcard/disposable email domains? Whose cage should I start rattling? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by justbits :Therefore, I propose that on the "Step 2: Enter Email Address" page, "Name:" be allowed to be "postmaster@mydomain.com" and "Email:" be allowed to be "*@mydomain.com" so that postmaster@mydomain.com is responsible for all email originated as *@mydomain.com for my AT+T Yahoo email credentials. The "verification" email would be sent to postmaster@mydomain.com. If AT+T Yahoo would require me to implement DomainKeys or DKIM, I'd be glad to enter that information as a part of the configuration process for getting wildcard domains approved. I will second this proposal.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
justmb
join:2005-08-19
Naperville, IL | reply to justbits
I vote for this too!
I need disposable address support! |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| I turned your request over to a few friends and from what I got back it only accepts individual addresses at this time not domains. Basically from what I got Yahoo! is not budging on the issue. Apparently it was covered prior to you guys thinking it. |
|
Ozzie4
join:2006-10-02
Palatine, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nwrickert
Re: Where did my spam go?
Just another person chiming in, but mostly in thanks. I visited this forum after not being here in a week or so and read the post. Not thinking much of it, I realized I had gotten a lot less spam. Looking in the spam folder though I found all sorts of stuff blocked that shouldn't have been - job offers from companies I've gotten mail from for years, legitimate business I do work with and for including some requests for work (!), and even a note from my mom that was bounced for some reason (apparently AOL is unsafe now?).
The new spam filter is a bit too agressive. If I hadn't read this, I'd have lost actual money from those job offers I saved last night. |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to David
Re: Email domains w/Disposable or Wildcard Addresses now a PITA
This is a great way for AT+T to lose some of the more advanced customers that run services from their home DSL line.
With this change, the primary alternatives are:
* switch to a different provider that provides a static IP address. (For me, SpeakEasy, Covad, Lightning Bolt DSL, maybe others.)
* switch to a business package that has a static IP address.
* find a third party to pay that provides wildcard email domain address forwarding.
Unless this is a marketing decision to get people running email servers to switch to business accounts (non-RBLed static IPs), I don't see how preventing wildcard email domains is a spam or security threat to AT+T/Yahoo. I can see how this makes complete sense for "free" Yahoo! accounts where anybody can create an account, abuse it, and leave it. However, AT+T/Yahoo's service is directly tied to monetary payments and a billing system that can physically locate the person responsible for a particular email account.
If they're worried on the technical side that someone may decide that they want to send as *@gmail.com, I can understand where that trust issue comes from. Therefore, I propose doing something similar to what Google Apps requires. Require that the customer provide a DNS record that AT+T Yahoo generates, and can thus verify by a DNS lookup.
Google does domain verification by requiring the customer to create a new DNS CNAME record, such as:
googlefffffafbfcfdfefg.mydomain.com. CNAME google.com.
By having the customer modify their DNS domain information, this provides sufficient proof that the requester owns that particular domain and has the capability to edit the DNS records for that domain.
I understand that adding a DNS verification method to validate wildcarded email domains for email verification could require significant work on AT+T/Yahoo's side of the world and that it probably can't be done overnight. But, it's a solution to a problem that they're otherwise ignoring that could result in an exodus of a certain kind of AT+T/Yahoo customer.
Another alternative that AT+T could provide to solve my problem is single static IP addresses. I'd be happy to pay $5/month (maybe $10/month) to get a single static IP address that is NOT listed in any RBL (realtime black list). As I understand it, single static IPs can be done with changes to PPPoE Authentication on the customer side (@static.sbcglobal.net?) and configuration on the Redback(s). I'm sure there are several blocks of addresses out there that AT+T hasn't registered with RBLs as dynamic IP addresses. |
|
