how-to block ads
|
jscs
Premium
join:2004-06-24
Ojai, CA
| [Email] Limitation on outgoing email.
We operate a small non-profit in Ojai, California, and once or twice a month send out a newsletter with information about upcoming events and so forth to a very small list of subscribers (no more than 1,000 at a time). We use the software GroupMail for this, and send the mail through the smtp server where our website and our email accounts are hosted - i.e., not through the ISP's smtp servers. We have been doing this for more than five years now and never had the slightest bit of trouble.
For most of this time, we had SBC-DSL, but about a year and a half ago we moved our home and home office to a part of town that is too far from the CO for more than 1.5 MB, so we switched to Adelphia cable - Extreme HSI - and until last week we were very happy with the service and speed. Last Wednesday I started to send a newsletter to about 800 recipients and discovered that I could send no more than about a hundred at a time(107 one time, 93 another, and so on...), after which the sending was blocked and remained blocked for an hour or so. After an hour or so, I could send another hundred and so forth until all were sent.
I spent hours working a ticket at my host before a supervisor finally sent me the access logs which showed that it was Adelphia timing out. I called Adelphia the following morning and after some run around I was informed that this Adelphia's policy was to allow no more than 100 emails an hour and no more than some other number in a month, and that there was no possibility of doing anything about this. Period. When I asked why this had suddenly appeared after a year and a half, I was told that "it must not have been noticed until now".
We are not spammers. Even though we are very small and our emails our very low volume, we rigorously insure that no one ever receives an email from us if they don't want to. So what's up with this? Is Adelphia crazy? Is there anything we can do?
Thanks in advance. | |
theseus
join:2006-03-08
Buffalo, NY
1 edit | In short, no, there is nothing that you can do. Those restrictions are company wide and I have yet to see someone successfully have it reversed. | |
AdelphiaWMH
join:2005-02-09
Englewood, CO
| reply to jscs
said by jscs  :We use the software GroupMail for this, and send the mail through the smtp server where our website and our email accounts are hosted - i.e., not through the ISP's smtp servers. We have been doing this for more than five years now and never had the slightest bit of trouble. said by jscs :I called Adelphia the following morning and after some run around I was informed that this Adelphia's policy was to allow no more than 100 emails an hour and no more than some other number in a month, and that there was no possibility of doing anything about this. Period. When I asked why this had suddenly appeared after a year and a half, I was told that "it must not have been noticed until now". We are not spammers. Even though we are very small and our emails our very low volume, we rigorously insure that no one ever receives an email from us if they don't want to. So what's up with this? Is Adelphia crazy? Is there anything we can do? Unless you have a business account (which allows use of an SMTP server, which you must then run and maintain), there are no overrides on our mail server settings.
I would suggest getting an SMTP server if you'd like to send out large amounts of mail, and ensure that you are on a business account.
-MH | |
SkellBasher
Yes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
North Tonawanda, NY
| reply to jscs
said by jscs : We use the software GroupMail for this, and send the mail through the smtp server where our website and our email accounts are hosted - i.e., not through the ISP's smtp servers. Just a second here...
Does the SMTP server you are using to send these messages end in adelphia.net , or the domain name of your website?
If I am reading your first comment correctly, you are not using the SMTP servers of your provider, therefore whatever outgoing restrictions are on the Adelphia SMTP servers should not apply since you are not using them.
--
Help the victims of Katrinahttp://redcross.org/ | |
ericdaboy
join:2005-09-21
West Palm Beach, FL | reply to jscs
If you are using mail.adelphia.net as the outgoing server then these are the rules you need to follow:
A customer can send one single email message to 98 recipients at one time and up to 500 messages in 24 hours. | |
SkellBasher
Yes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
North Tonawanda, NY
| reply to jscs
That's for the confirmation of something WE ALREADY KNOW.
The original poster seems to indicate that he is NOT in fact using mail.adelphia.net as his outgoing server, therefore any restrictions made on sent mail would not apply.
The point of my question to the OP is to clarify his statement. If they are not using Adelphia mail servers, and they are being told they are being stopped by an Adelphia mail server restriction, then they are not getting the correct information.
--
Help the victims of Katrinahttp://redcross.org/ | |
steelhead78
Premium,MVM
join:2005-08-23
Carrolltown, PA | Needless to say, if the OP does not have a business account and then upgrades to it, the issue should be resolved. | |
SkellBasher
Yes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
North Tonawanda, NY
| reply to jscs
Again, missing my point.
If I'm at home on my Adelphia connection, and I decide that I want to send out 2000 emails through my SMTP server for my personal domain hosted in Seattle, WA with a 3rd party carrier, then whatever restrictions Adelphia has in place on THEIR SMTP servers doesn't apply to me since my messages aren't going there.
If I have a business account, nothing changes. My messages are still being sent through a 3rd party SMTP server, so again no restrictions that Adelphia imposes on their SMTP servers applies to me.
Unless Adelphia is doing application layer content filtering and monitoring of traffic flows, there is no way for Adelphia to restrict how many messages I can sent through a mail server not managed by Adelphia. If they ARE in fact doing application layer monitoring on traffic flows, and applying traffic policies to anything other than P2P and virii / trojan traffic, I'll be dropping my services extremely quickly.
Stop being such a fanboy and understand the discussion.
--
Help the victims of Katrinahttp://redcross.org/ | |
n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA
1 edit | reply to jscs
When I switched my dad over from dial-up to cable, he wanted to keep his old e-mail address. I left his old settings alone and later found out that he could get incoming e-mail from the old ISP's server (mail.pacific.net) but he couldn't send any e-mails. I contacted the Adelphia web chat technicians and they said all outgoing e-mail traffic must pass through Adelphia's servers when using their connection. Once I changed the outgoing e-mail server to mail.adelphia.net, everything worked perfectly.
Perhaps the same thing is happening here. | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
1 edit | Many ISPs require you to be on THIER network to use THIER SMTP server, Adelphia included.
But Adelphia doesn't require customer's to use the Adelphia SMTP server to send mail. They can use any SMTP server they have ACCESS to.
So if I'm on Charter's network I can't use Adelphia's SMTP server. This is called "relaying" and most ISPs don't allow it.
More then likely this is why you couldn't use the mail.pacific.net SMTP server because you were no longer on THIER network.
P.S. SMTP mail server is for outgoing email. POP mail server is for incoming email.
--
For official Adelphia support, contact Adelphia. I'm just here for advice... | |
n_w95482
Premium
join:2005-08-03
Ukiah, CA
| reply to jscs
That would explain still being able to access his account and receiving e-mails directly from the other ISP's server? Sorry if I sound clueless, I don't do much e-mail and I use webmail services  . Now that you mention it, I think I remember reading about the relaying thing earlier... | |
drakenon
join:2002-11-08
Lockport, NY
| reply to n_w95482
said by n_w95482 :When I switched my dad over from dial-up to cable, he wanted to keep his old e-mail address. I left his old settings alone and later found out that he could get incoming e-mail from the old ISP's server (mail.pacific.net) but he couldn't send any e-mails. I contacted the Adelphia web chat technicians and they said all outgoing e-mail traffic must pass through Adelphia's servers when using their connection. Once I changed the outgoing e-mail server to mail.adelphia.net, everything worked perfectly. Perhaps the same thing is happening here. The reason for this is mail.pacific.net is probably not allowing relaying of email "off" their network. Ie if you send email from an adelphia.net IP to the mail.pacific.net, then most non authenticating smtp servers will bounce the connection with a 550 relaying error as the email traffic originated off of their network. Most domains that do not require authentication do that so they can cut down on spammer traffic through their network. It also helps keep that domain from getting onto an RBL list like the Accursed SORBS 
--
"Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue."
Scott Adams | |
drakenon
join:2002-11-08
Lockport, NY
| reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech :Many ISPs require you to be on THIER network to use THIER SMTP server, Adelphia included. But Adelphia doesn't require customer's to use the Adelphia SMTP server to send mail. They can use any SMTP server they have ACCESS to. So if I'm on Charter's network I can't use Adelphia's SMTP server. This is called "relaying" and most ISPs don't allow it. More then likely this is why you couldn't use the mail.pacific.net SMTP server because you were no longer on THIER network. P.S. SMTP mail server is for outgoing email. POP mail server is for incoming email. Darn Mac beat me to it. 
--
"Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue."
Scott Adams | |
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to SkellBasher
skellbasher posted
"Unless Adelphia is doing application layer content filtering and monitoring of traffic flows, there is no way for Adelphia to restrict how many messages I can sent through a mail server not managed by Adelphia. If they ARE in fact doing application layer monitoring on traffic flows, and applying traffic policies to anything other than P2P and virii / trojan traffic, I'll be dropping my services extremely quickly"
I dug around a bit today....I believe the OP IS trying to use Adelphia's smtp server.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | |
SkellBasher
Yes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
North Tonawanda, NY
| said by hobgoblin :I dug around a bit today....I believe the OP IS trying to use Adelphia's smtp server. Then that settles things. 
--
Help the victims of Katrinahttp://redcross.org/ | |
AdelphiaWMH
join:2005-02-09
Englewood, CO
3 edits | reply to SkellBasher
said by SkellBasher :Unless Adelphia is doing application layer content filtering and monitoring of traffic flows, there is no way for Adelphia to restrict how many messages I can sent through a mail server not managed by Adelphia. If they ARE in fact doing application layer monitoring on traffic flows, and applying traffic policies to anything other than P2P and virii / trojan traffic, I'll be dropping my services extremely quickly. Let's discuss this a bit, SB, *hypothetically*.
Let's say that a responsible service provider wanted to stop the hijacking of its customer's PC's, while it was happening (not after the fact via an abuse report or blocklisting).
And let's say (again, hypothetically) that a provider had the ability to look at outgoing SMTP packets from a subscriber IP address, and categorize them. Let's say that the provider also had the ability, without looking at any content at all, to analyze the number of messages sent, the number of unique "from" addresses, the number of unique "to" addresses, the number of outbound SMTP servers connected to, total recipients, attempted messages, and errors received (5xx or 4xx).
Why would you still be adverse to that provider limiting the number of emails that a PC could/would send via a 3rd party SMTP server?
I will wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be *insane* for a responsible service provider to take one single source of information (say, the number of messages sent) and use that as the sole decision factor.
In my opinion, if one had the capability to do so, though, it would be more than irresponsible of a provider with the capabilities described above to not take action on obvious infections.
It doesn't take a genius to say "uh oh, infected machine" if a provider sees that a residential IP address that has never sent mail before "X" day is sending 100,000 messages to 500,000 unique receipients, via 1,000 different SMTP servers, using 10,000 different "from" addresses and 5,000 different "from" domains, and receiving 300,000 error messages back.
So, I guess my question to you is - if you were a responsible provider, what would you do if you had the capability (hypothetically)?
-MH | |
Champer
join:2004-04-07
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
1 edit | said by AdelphiaWMH :said by SkellBasher :Unless Adelphia is doing application layer content filtering and monitoring of traffic flows, there is no way for Adelphia to restrict how many messages I can sent through a mail server not managed by Adelphia. If they ARE in fact doing application layer monitoring on traffic flows, and applying traffic policies to anything other than P2P and virii / trojan traffic, I'll be dropping my services extremely quickly. Let's discuss this a bit, SB, *hypothetically*. Let's say that a responsible service provider wanted to stop the hijacking of its customer's PC's, while it was happening (not after the fact via an abuse report or blocklisting). And let's say (again, hypothetically) that a provider had the ability to look at outgoing SMTP packets from a subscriber IP address, and categorize them. Let's say that the provider also had the ability, without looking at any content at all, to analyze the number of messages sent, the number of unique "from" addresses, the number of unique "to" addresses, the number of outbound SMTP servers connected to, total recipients, attempted messages, and errors received (5xx or 4xx). Why would you still be adverse to that provider limiting the number of emails that a PC could/would send via a 3rd party SMTP server? I will wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be *insane* for a responsible service provider to take one single source of information (say, the number of messages sent) and use that as the sole decision factor. In my opinion, if one had the capability to do so, though, it would be more than irresponsible of a provider with the capabilities described above to not take action on obvious infections. It doesn't take a genius to say "uh oh, infected machine" if a provider sees that a residential IP address that has never sent mail before "X" day is sending 100,000 messages to 500,000 unique receipients, via 1,000 different SMTP servers, using 10,000 different "from" addresses and 5,000 different "from" domains, and receiving 300,000 error messages back. So, I guess my question to you is - if you were a responsible provider, what would you do if you had the capability (hypothetically)? -MH I would {hypothetically} not announce that said provider had the ability nor the means to do such a thing on a public forum where hundreds of it's users come to get help, and question the actual intent of their provider {hypothetically} Because it may raise eyes and ears as to what else said provider can and does look at.
EDIT: Don't look too deep into this, it's a sarcastic remark. | |
SkellBasher
Yes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
North Tonawanda, NY
| reply to AdelphiaWMH
said by AdelphiaWMH :So, I guess my question to you is - if you were a responsible provider, what would you do if you had the capability (hypothetically)? It's an interesting debate, and one that I find myself on both sides on in different ways. As 2nd in command of a 280k+ subscriber network, I know very well the problems caused by infected/comprimised machines.
I will lay out my position as best I can.
My feeling is that as an ISP, I am responsible for providing our subscribers with a functioning internet connection. I am not responsible for securing their computers, cleaning virii / trojans, or the like. I don't care what people do, under certain conditions:
1. They are not breaking any laws that govern internet traffic. (Broad scope I know, but a good way to say it.)
2. They are not generating traffic that has a negative affect on my network or connected devices.
3. They are not generating traffic that affects otehr customer
If a user violates these rules, they are disconnected. Period. The end user needs to take whatever actions nescessary to secure their machines, and once that is done, they are allowed back on. Happens again, off again.
If customer A is spamming, and it's reported to me, they are done. If I notice a problem because of the flood of spam, then they are done. However, if they are not causing problems with my area of responsbility, then I don't care.
Is that 'internet friendly'? A good question. But given the scenario at hand, who is more culpable: the ISP providing access, or the open relay mail server that is accepting the messages? I think it's the latter.
In order to gather the data you're talking about, you have to keep track of the source /destination IPs, ports, protocol numbers, etc, etc. To determine the exact nature of SMTP errors? You're now into the packet payloads, that stuff isn't in the headers. So, now you're proactively tracking everything I use my connection for, and looking at the actual contents of what I am sending in each packet payload.
That's too Big Brother to me. I don't do anything extrordinary; besides web surfing and WoW, most everything else is done wrapped in SSH anyways, and not viewable by anyone packet sniffing.
But where do you draw the line between looking for problems and invasion of privacy? It's a fine line, and frankly I don't know where that is.
So, in a nutshell, I have no issues with ISPs using application layer aware appliances to filter out traffic produced from virii / trojans that cannot be filtered at the network layer devices, however using such technology to monitor normal, everyday traffic that MAY OR MAY NOT be questionable is over the line in my opinion.
--
Help the victims of Katrinahttp://redcross.org/ | |
gck06
join:2006-02-23
State College, PA | This is why i use hushmail for anything i dont want read or snooped into. And anon proxy services for surfing at times.
Very good posts SB. | |
SkellBasher
Yes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
North Tonawanda, NY
1 edit | said by gck06 :And anon proxy services for surfing at times. Anonymous proxy is no protection if I am on the wire. Just more work involved. You have to send traffic to the proxy site, and after they get it they have to send it to you. Once you nail down the proxy site, you watch for that traffic back and forth.
Have I mentioned how much my call center hates my guts doing stuff like this? People go through strange ways to try and watch porn at work.
Appriciate the compliments as well. I rather enjoy productive discussions more than trash talking, although that does come in at a close second. ;-p | |
|
