Slashdot Mirror


Verizon's Aggressive New Spam Filter Causing Problems

aviancarrier writes "Verizon DSL has turned on a very aggressive spam filter that is blocking lots of long-time legitimate emails. Emails get bounced with an error: 'XX@verizon.net: host relay.verizon.net[206.46.232.11] said: 550 Email from your Email Service Provider is currently blocked by Verizon Online's anti-spam system. The email "sender" or Email Service Provider may visit http://www.verizon.net/whitelist and request removal of the block.' That whitelist web page lets you request one address at a time to be whitelisted with no guarantee for their response time to process it. I have tested multiple email sources and only one got through. As a VZ customer, I just spent 28 minutes on a call to tech support, eventually got a supervisor who knows nothing about the new spam feature, and would only agree to email a manager who doesn't work weekends about it. I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand." Many users have submitted this problem so it seems to be a pretty far reaching problem. There is also a discussion going on over at Google about this problem.

311 comments

  1. There seems to be some mixup... by winkydink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I went to the referenced URL and it sure looks to me like, using the
    ISP form, you can request multiple domains and multiple IP addrs in a
    single request.

    Also, the discussion over at Google currently has a whopping 6 entries.

    Much ado about nothing?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Also, the discussion over at Google currently has a whopping 6 entries.

      Much ado about nothing?

      It has probably not reached epidemic proportions yet, but as a former Verizon DSL customer, it does not surprise met that their idea of SPAM filtering is to block most legitimate incoming traffic. They tend to have a brute force approach to technical problems. Their tech support has been spotty for a long time; I would sometimes get really sharp people who could scope something out in minutes, other times I wondered if the tech knew what a router was.

      If this goes on long enough, you can bet there will be a pretty strong backlash and the last thing Verizon needs is egg on its face. They'd hate to see customers flocking to cable and dumping their DSL, especially if those customers take their phone service along with them.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by jamie · · Score: 1, Informative

      We wouldn't have run this story if all we saw was 6 people on a Google discussion. We have confirmation that something's going on. But we don't know a whole lot about the scope, and we're hoping that readers will provide more data points.

    3. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      well, some lawyers are filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of Verizon customers. i've got the e-mail somewhere in my junkmail folder.

      but yeah, Verizon's anti-spam feature is broken. i logged on to my account with their web tool, and i disabled their spam block feature. but when i check my e-mail through their webmail interface, i see a bunch of unread mail in the spam folder. of course, it was all spam.. but still.

    4. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by winkydink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps the "we" that decided to run the story could have devoted a bit more time writing or editing the article synopsis? Perhaps even make it factually correct wrt to the ability to whitelist multiple domains/ip addrs with a single request (which the summary says must be done one by each)?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    5. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by arodland · · Score: 0, Troll

      But it's so much less work to just quote the bullshit that the submitter came up with, regardless of whether it has any basis in reality.

    6. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I admin a small ISP and I can tell you that the postmaster inbox had about 25 emails this morning with "I can't email xxxx@verizon.net." Additionally, we've had a few irates in the call center today. This was enough to rattle the nerves a bit, and I actually spent a few hours searching through the logs to see if we were naughty, since the whole thing seemed pretty arbitrary and there was no abuse evidence provided from Verizon. After seeing this, I'm slightly relieved it's not our fault. I took some time to fill out the whitelist form this morning anyway..

      The issue (from our domain at least), has apparently resolved itself as of about 7AM EST, 2 hours prior to me filling in the boxes.

    7. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by evilbessie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well this is really not news to me. I work for an anti-spam company (not a very good one) and I personally noticed this first occur about 12-18 months ago. At that time Verizon decided to block pretty much all oversees mail. Being based in the UK caused no end of issue, although I seem to recal having PTR records did help some.

      So they have been evil again, wow, i'm shocked truely shocked.

      enjoy

    8. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I run multiple forums sites, and I can confirm that I started receiving anti-spam messages just as reported here, starting today. Not sure how long it will take to get our sites whitelisted, if they will whitelist them at all.

    9. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Cable around here would just randomly lose my mail at times, so at least with DSL somebody trying to reach me gets an error message. :-)

    10. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by ModExec · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a Verizon DSL custmoer, I can attest to there being a problem. For the past 18 months, Verizon has refused to pass along listserv messages forward to my verizon.net inbox from my university email account. Emails from individuals that are addressed to my univeristy made it through the spam filters fine. But emails from my university's listserver were blocked. All of them.

      I called Verizon about it in January after I realized it was happening. I suspected it had been going on since I got my DSL service, but at the time just assumed that I had been unsubscribed from all of my school's listservs (because of some crazy mix up regarding my academic year, my switch from an undergrad to a law student, etc. Don't ask...). Verizon opened an Operation Control Services (OSC) ticket to look into the matter. After four months of investigating, dozens of calls, hours of talking to tech no-support, and five OSC tickets later, the matter still is not resolved.

      During the time we were diagnosing the problem, OSC asked for the error code that my university received whenever it tried to forward messages. My college's IT department told me that they received an error 450 for every message: "Deferred: 450 Requested mail action not taken-Try later:sv11pub.verizon.net (from relay.verizon.net [206.46.232.11])." According to OSC, this meant that the Verizon mail server could not verify that the listserv messages being forwarded actually originated from the listserver domain. Given my school's list server set up, this makes perfect sense; users on the listserv may send an email to the server's listening account, which takes messages and creates a new message to blast the original message to all the listserv's recipients. The intermediate listening account seemed to be a legitimate way to relay messages to recipients.

      Apparently, that didn't fly with the Verizon servers. OSC engineers thoroughly explained the problem in my account's notes, "Sender cannot be verified, which is the cause of their mail issue. NOTE: 451 ... Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable. Whitelisting will not help. They will need to correct the config on their mail server." This made no sense to me, to my school's IT department, and even to the Verizon tech who tried to interpret the notes. Apparently, what these notes meant to say was the university's servers did not comply with some sort of internet standards for mail routing. Despite there being a legitimate use for the messages, Verizon would not create an exception in the hallowed standard to accomodate the forwarded messages. Verizon's OSC recommended that I tell my school's IT department that it was their servers that did not comply with the standard -- that if they wanted Verizon to accept their forwards, they needed to reconfigure their listservers. This was incredible. For what it was worth, I relayed this to my school's IT department. Not surprizingly, they have made no changes. Why fix what works with 99.9% of the ISPs out there? Whoever said Verizon was using brute force tactics to do business has hit the nail right on the head.

      But this is not the only problem at Verizon. One month ago, they had to suspend their entire "Block Senders" database because it got so large that the Verizon server couldn't process the messages through it. As I understand it, the database caused a number of hiccups, blocking hundreds of legitimate messages and letting through as many or more spam messages. To this day, Verizon has not reintstated users' "block senders" email option.

      This is not to mention the fact that Verizon is notorious for not following up with its customers. Over the four months that I tried to get a resolution, only once did I ever receive a call from a member of the supervisor escalation group, informing me of any "progress." In an effort to keep myself in the loop, I would call the verizon tech no-support department, only to find that that my OSC ticket had been closed without notice and without resolu

    11. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Perhaps even make it factually correct wrt to the ability to whitelist multiple domains/ip addrs with a single request

      Whitelist *@hotmail.com ? There's a winning strategy!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    12. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

      You wouldn't have.

      Zonk on the other hand would run it today, and again tomorrow.

      *ducks*

    13. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by (H)olyGeekboy · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention this during one of my rare comment thread reads.

      The fact that the slashdot "editors" do absolutely no editing (spellchecking, corroboration, or clarification) before they post submissions is a real pain point. It was fine in 1998, when I first registered an account... but now with sites like boingboing making regular corrections/additions/issuing mea culpas on mistakes, slashdot doesn't shine quite as brightly.

      I understand they exist mostly as an article aggregator, instead of a legitimate journalistic endeavor, or even a full-fledged blog, but even fark.com edits their headlines when they're misleading or flat-out wrong.

      I'm not saying this is the case with this particular article, but over eight years, you see a lot of... stuff.

    14. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Regarding the tech's "Sender cannot be verified," what kind of test did your university's listserver fail...SPF validation, Greylisting, rDNS, FCrDNS, and based on the message's SMTP/Envelope sender email address domain, the listerserver's IP address, its HELO name, or?

    15. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by aePrime · · Score: 2, Funny

      hours of talking to tech no-support

      I call BS. You're implying that you actually got through to Verizon's customer service.

    16. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      I had Verizon for internet for about 18 months in my old place. Outages and mail problems the entire time. One day I asked them to install a second phone line. Instead, they disconnected the first one. The only way I ever got Verizon's attention was to file a complaint with the Illinois Public Utilities Board. Only after that did I start getting the promised call-backs and attention.

      I'd rather pay twice as much for internet from another company than go with Verizon. And if they run the rest of their operation as badly as their ISP end, then I'll never have any Verizon services.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    17. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      I submitted a link to your post to the SPAM-L mailing list and quickly received a reply that Verizon fixed this very issue. I asked for details but was told that it was not public info and without consent the person can't comment to me.

    18. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by pdclarry · · Score: 1

      As the administrator of an L-Soft listserv installation I may have some insight into your problem. We had a similar problem last year when we implemented a listserv feature that would put the recipient's email address in the body of a message. This also changes the "sent from" field in the header to an alternate address format that Verizon doesn't recognize. Verizon then rejects the message on the basis that it can't resolve the sender's address. of the 100+ different ISPs on our lists Verizon was the only one that had this problem. The problem went away when we disabled this feature.

    19. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by dskinner · · Score: 1

      "Sender cannot be verified, which is the cause of their mail issue. NOTE: 451 ... Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable. Whitelisting will not help. They will need to correct the config on their mail server."

      It does makes sense. You either have poor mail admins or it does work (and makes sense) and VZ is smokin something.

      What that says is that VZ tried to send a message (probably a bounce) to the envelope sender and received a 451 error (mailbox unavailable) from the university server. If the sender won't accept a bounce for the message, then something is likely misconfigured. Have your school create a mailbox for the sender address even if it sends everything to /dev/null.

    20. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Why would VZ send a bounce message for each message that the listserv sent over the several month span (as opposed to an in-session protocol error indicating the VZ mailbox alias didn't exist or the mailbox was full)?

    21. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by dskinner · · Score: 1

      It doesn't send a bounce, but it checks to see if one *could* be sent. It is a common anti-spam measure. If you really want to understand this, try googling for sender verification or sender callout and MTA. The nice thing is that you don't need to understand it, but your university mail admins should and my previous desciption should be more than adequate to put them on the right track.

    22. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      (I'm merely commenting to GP; the university isn't mine.) I wonder why sender verification/callout is so popular. How far do most MTA's go in their test SMTP conversation? Do they drop after receiving a 250 to their HELO or their MAIL FROM or their RCPT TO? I also wonder if there are legit reasons why the SMTP/Envelope sender *would* be spoofed. If that email address domain doesn't have SPF1 records, then wouldn't that be sufficient knowledge to the world that they might allow their domain to be spoofed/forged by 3rd-party mailers and listserv's?

    23. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by dskinner · · Score: 1

      They issue a QUIT after receiving a response to the RCPT TO: (which is what they are checking). I believe postfix will try to set the MAIL FROM: e.g. postmaster@verizon.net. Exim would use a bounce format and leave it blank. Not sure what other MTA's use there.

      Check out RFC 2821. I found this part esp interesting to this discussion:

      3.10 Mailing Lists and Aliases

            An SMTP-capable host SHOULD support both the alias and the list
            models of address expansion for multiple delivery. When a message is
            delivered or forwarded to each address of an expanded list form, the
            return address in the envelope ("MAIL FROM:") MUST be changed to be
            the address of a person or other entity who administers the list.
            However, in this case, the message header [32] MUST be left
            unchanged; in particular, the "From" field of the message header is
            unaffected.

      This implies that the "person or other entity" is a valid email address that can accept mail and therefore, bounces.

    24. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks. BTW, by "message header [32]" (footnote referring to RFC 2822) is this refering to the cosmetic MIME/message From/sender email address that must not be changed/affected (whereas the SMTP/Envelope sender MUST be changed)?

    25. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by dskinner · · Score: 1

      I would have to double-check to be sure, but I believe that is the case. In the SMTP conversation:

      EHLO domain.com
      MAIL FROM: <sender@domain.com>
      RCPT TO: <recipient@someplace.com>

      gets changed to the listmanager entity, but

      DATA
      From: Some Guy <sender@domain.com>
      To: Some Gal <recipient@someplace.com>
      Subject: Hi
      Hi
      .
      QUIT

      remains the same.

    26. Re:There seems to be some mixup... by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Yes; new envelope and same message inside. Same-envelope forwarding is oft chastized/larted on the SPAM-L list of most-humble mail admins :)

  2. Oh no! Not again! by IlliniECE · · Score: 0

    Gmail already ripped me off once when they put a job offer in the spam box. Now Verizon's at it!

    1. Re:Oh no! Not again! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I been noticing that lately with AT&T (previously SBC) DSL where recruiter emails are landing in the spam box. Makes me wonder if I should respond to these emails if they can't get by a spam filter. Fortunately, nearly all of them are jobs that I wouldn't consider anyway.

    2. Re:Oh no! Not again! by Guppy06 · · Score: 0

      That job offer wasn't really from an exiled Nigerian president.

    3. Re:Oh no! Not again! by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1
      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
  3. the times they are a changin' by invader_allan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are we really entering an era where the only way to filter mail is to simply block incoming traffic so aggresively that we don't even get our mail? There does not seem to be much chance of filtering those hundreds of messages a day we get and still get the few we need. Viva la advertising!

    1. Re:the times they are a changin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why they just use RDNS? Floods of spambots are killing the world email system. Requiring reverse lookups works.

    2. Re:the times they are a changin' by phase_9 · · Score: 1

      Our ISP has recently had to filter mail via SORBS (http://www.sorbs.net/) to combat the amount of spam - it's been causing havok as hotmail and yahoo users get their mail randomly rejected. I'm presuming this is a simlar line of defense.

    3. Re:the times they are a changin' by drakaan · · Score: 1
      No, reverse DNS is damn near impossible (unless you only ever want a single mail domain hosted from a particualr IP address) because reverse DNS only returns the first PTR record for a given IP address.

      SRV records (SPF specificaly), on the other hand, are actually helpful here.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    4. Re:the times they are a changin' by TallMatthew · · Score: 1
      Yes, or better we're moving towards a day where a global whitelist determines what SMTP servers you listen to, no exceptions. Wouldn't it be great if all a nation's mail, say China's or Romania's or Russia's, were required to pass through a small set of servers?

      In the US, large network carriers would relay mail to one another and smaller organizations would be required to relay everything through them. I don't see the problem with that ... we route packets that way ... why not mail?

    5. Re:the times they are a changin' by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, if the SPF exists, the domain has a higher probablity of being spam than if not.

      Most normal hosts are ignoring SPF.

      Many (not a large proportion though) of spammers are using SPF.

      So the filter on the mail servers I help run scores messages on the spam scale HIGHER if they have an SPF.

      Is that screwed up or what?

      (It works, though the SPF in itself does not push it over the threshold. A lot of times it goes along with other spammy-ness that combined does push it over the threshold.)

    6. Re:the times they are a changin' by statusbar · · Score: 0

      Stalin and Mao would be proud!!!

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    7. Re:the times they are a changin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why we reject all port 25 connections from Verizon, comcast and rr. It's hypocritical of Verizon to do this and not filter their egress port 25 traffic. Why should any MTA operator have to endure constant connection attempts from the zombied PC's of the tards these companies call customers? This isn't rocket science, if you have non-technical customers then a default block (to be lifted upon request) of the SMTP port should just be considered good netiquette.

    8. Re:the times they are a changin' by kv9 · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it be great if all a nation's mail, say China's or Romania's or Russia's, were required to pass through a small set of servers?

      no. http://www.newstarget.com/003639.html

    9. Re:the times they are a changin' by drakaan · · Score: 1
      ARRGGGHHH!!!

      That just kills me. The whole point of SPF is so that you can ID and block (accurately) places that you don't want to get mail from. If a domain has an SPF record, then you know who's allowed to send mail for that domain. If you're getting spam from the mail servers *on* the SPF list, then they can't very well say "hey, that wasn't us". It's a system that *should* work great.

      The biggest problem I have with it is that I have to pay a lot more money to have an email server running now. Last year, I could send to pretty much anyone I needed to from my server at the house (SPF, dynamic DNS via no-ip.com, and DSL), and it worked fine. Now, unless I have a reverse-DNS entry (and not even that works, since "I've been identified as being on a suspicious network") for my DSL address, I can't send to a lot of people.

      Granted, a lot of them are AOL subscribers, and I don't personally care about that, but still, it's the principle of the matter.

      It sucks when there's a great solution for a problem, and then a whole bunch of people decide not to do it. *sigh*...yes, that IS screwed up.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    10. Re:the times they are a changin' by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      reverse DNS only returns the first PTR record for a given IP address

      Actually, that's not true at all. Setup multiple PTR records and use dig -x to view. Works FINE.

      Now some stupid clients only use the first result received, and some stupid DNS management tools only allow one, but that is not a limitation of DNS.

    11. Re:the times they are a changin' by gmack · · Score: 1

      Not true.. many isps are now checking SPF records. I had a problem with mine and several large mail providers (Canada.com, yahoo and others) stopped accepting mail from me. I love SPF because the spammers seem to have started checking for SPF on the domain before pretending to send from it. My 6 year old domain used to get a flood of bounces every couple months as some idiot would send several thousand messages pruportedly from *@innerfire.net. Now I havn't had a problem in months.

    12. Re:the times they are a changin' by drakaan · · Score: 1
      I like dig. I use dig all the time. Dig does indeed return multiple results for PTR records. Unfortunately, the brain-dead software you refer to is still pretty widespread, and until that changes, PTR records are broken if you want to use them to reliably identify whether a mailserver and a particular IP address are tied together. So, it *is* true, practically speaking, but it's not true, technically speaking.

      Thank you for keeping me honest, though...I should be more precise.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    13. Re:the times they are a changin' by operagost · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are meaningless without considering the total volume of mail. The percentage of spam from country A may be greater than that from country B, even though country B sends a larger number of emails. In that case, filtering country A would be more efficient and effective.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  4. 28 minutes? by Jordan+Catalano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a trick for Verizon Online phone service: Call up, listen to menu items, then say -nothing-. Don't ask for an operator, don't enter in your phone number: just chill for about two minutes while the prompts repeat. In under three minutes, you'll be transfered to a live operator.

    1. Re:28 minutes? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bookmark this page. It will be your best friend.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:28 minutes? by Nerd_52637 · · Score: 1

      *0*0 works on lots of systems too.

    3. Re:28 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this Mr. Thuman and why do I care?

    4. Re:28 minutes? by LMacG · · Score: 4, Insightful
      [Full disclosure for the following comment -- I program voice response systems for a living. However, I only implement what they force me to, and sometimes that sucks.]

      From that page:

      We will soon publish a list of the best and worst mass-market consumer companies in the US based on how long it takes to get to a human on the phone and on the quality of support received.


      That's very nice, but it doesn't seem like a very intelligent way to measure customer service. As a trivial example, suppose you want to know your credit card balance. A decently programmed voice response system can give you that information quickly and clearly, and in much less time than it would take to get the same data from a human. If you're lucky, the IVR won't even try to sell you something that you don't need.

      Yes, I know that there are times when the available pre-programmed options are not useful and speaking to a representative is the only option. But do you want to have to wait in queue for an agent who has to handle ninety-twelve "what is my balance?" calls before it's your turn? Now ask yourself why the call centers are being outsourced to overseas providers ...

      This "I only will deal with a human" attitude is pointless. Better to demand that corporations fix their IVR systems, because they're not going away. (And maybe I'll get hired to write more VUI specs instead of having to implement what 'the business' thinks it wants.)
      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    5. Re:28 minutes? by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's a straightforward "what's my balance" question I won't even call - that's what the website is for (if they don't have a decent website, I don't do business with them). The _only_ time I call companies (I'm a geek, real human-human conversation scares me!) is when there's something wrong I need to speak with someone about. Thus, any system which hinders that is a PITA.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    6. Re:28 minutes? by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I just need my card balance, I check the web site. I haven't _called_ for my balance in 8 years.

      When I call in, it's because I have a problem or a question that isn't answerable by automated systems. After spending the last few years exploring phone trees exhaustively before finally saying "Yep, they can't handle it" and getting to a rep, I'm perfectly happy to rate companies on how easy that last step is.

    7. Re:28 minutes? by clary · · Score: 1

      I'll pile on with the other responders. Not to belittle your work or anything, but there is nothing, nothing I wish to do on the phone other than talk to a real live person. I might possibly tolerate one prompt that lets me choose a department (sales, customer service, etc.) to direct my call. If I have to deal with an IVR system and it is not absolutely necessary, I just do without.

      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    8. Re:28 minutes? by dubl-u · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This "I only will deal with a human" attitude is pointless. Better to demand that corporations fix their IVR systems [...]

      On the contrary. When IVR systems suck less, I'll use them more. (There are a couple good ones that I actually use regularly.) But until then, the way I demand better IVR is bypassing them. So when you get asked why the IVR system isn't meeting goals, tell 'em that it's the sucky UI.

    9. Re:28 minutes? by LMacG · · Score: 1

      Believe me, I have.

      I used to work with a guy who would have been happy if no calls were ever allowed to get to a real live person. I think there should be no barriers at all. We used to fight, a lot; but his side of the table controlled the budget, so guess who won?

      Of course now I just work with people who think adding speech recognition to a system means re-recording the prompts so that they say "press or say 1."

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    10. Re:28 minutes? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Just because you can speak to a human doesn't mean your problem will get solved in a reasonable fashion. Verizon took me two weeks, multiple phone calls and finally getting someone who spent the time to solve my problem (their records for my phone number were fucked, they claimed I didn't have a verizon number so I couldn't upgrade the service although I already had verizon dsl). This was business dsl if it matters.

      Granted the request was odd so I understand some of the wait, now with another company it took me three days of calling and bitching to get them to do a simple port forward. Before that it took me two days to just get info about the dsl line. Needless to say, that location switched dsl providers as quickly as humanly possible.

    11. Re:28 minutes? by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's nice if you have a full-featured web browser on your cell phone. Otherwise, I like to call and make sure when I'm checking out of my room on a business trip that I have enough room on my credit card.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:28 minutes? by advs89 · · Score: 0

      I want a database of numbers that I can enter to direct me to an _english-speaking_ human! It's not the automated phone services that bother me, its the human customer service reps who can't speak english (or that have such an accent that it seems as if they don't).

      --
      Rirelobql xabjf gung EBG-13 vf gur yrnfg frpher rapelcgvba rire, ohg jbhyq lbh jnfgr lbhe gvzr npghnyyl qrpelcgvat vg???
    13. Re:28 minutes? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      One problem is, despite the fact that you and I would never need to call about anything like a current balance, there are lots of people who do call for just such a purpose (whether they need to or not). And there are lots of people that call to see if their most recent payment has arrived (I admit to doing this myself once when the payment was very large). Directing all these calls to an automated system that actually works (way too many don't even work right) would be a big help. Remember that for all the companies out there that we think are idiots (and most really are), their view on things is that most of the consumers out there are idiots (and most really are).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    14. Re:28 minutes? by ModExec · · Score: 1

      Or hit "0" three times after confirming the DSL number. ... "Is 123-456-7890 the number you're calling about?" Say "Yes." ... "You're at the..." Press 0. ... "I'm sorry, I..." Press 0. ... "I still..." Press 0. ... "Please wait while you are transferred to an operator..."

    15. Re:28 minutes? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      You're game. Too many of my friends have been burnt by not being reimbursed when companies go under. Usually more a problem with a smaller company, but if you're with a larger outfit and travelling regularly, I'd be demanding a corporate card - though ironically, not for this, as the hotel will still demand payment if your corp card is declined - but mainly because what do /you/ do if you have a medical emergency / car needing repair and hey, can't put it on your card because the airfare for that last trip to Europe and associated hotel bills for work are all on your personal cards?

    16. Re:28 minutes? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      the hotel will still demand payment if your corp card is declined

      afiact the difference is:

      if your company goes under and you have a corp card then the most you'll have to fork out for yourself is a few nights accomodation somewhere and tavel home.

      if you use your own card then depending on the reimbursement policy you could easilly lose the full cost of your current trip and any previous trips since you were last reimbursed.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  5. No Email... No Spam... by techpawn · · Score: 1, Funny

    So, looks like they're blocking almost every email to eliminate spam. heh, How long till they do this with Telemarketers too?

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:No Email... No Spam... by skinnygmg · · Score: 1

      this is also an anti-virus tactic. telemarketers don't take down networks!

    2. Re:No Email... No Spam... by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Telemarketers...never. I swear telcos are getting kickbacks from the telemarketing industry. Even if they don't, Telcos are making money off the caller ID and blocking services they sell to people that use these to minimize the calls.

      Later,
      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
  6. aviancarrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that after bringing this up on Slashdot you will be able to spam all the verizon customers you like.

    So, what are you selling?

  7. Obviously... by terrahertz · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you need to power-cycle your DSL modem, disconnect everything but a single ethernet cable from your modem to your PC, reboot your PC, count to 30 while hopping on one foot, and say the alphabet backwards first before anyone at Verizon will turn on their brains and acknowledge they have a problem. Plus...28 minutes on the phone?? Pffft. You don't get the "real" tech support until they keep you on the line for at least 60 minutes.

    Don't you know how they troubleshoot already?

    --
    Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    1. Re:Obviously... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Sir... Sir... I'm going to have to ask you to find your Start Button."
      "I have OSX"
      "Sir... I understand, but I need to walk you through this. Please locate your Start button."
      "You don't understand - I'm on a Mac, I don't have a Start button."
      "Sir... You're not making this any easier. Once we go through this we can identify your issue."
      "Actually, my issue is that my cable modem arrived without a power supply."

      - Actual conversation I had with tech support. Long live tech support. Long live tech support scripts.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    2. Re:Obviously... by bwintx · · Score: 1
      ..you need to power-cycle your DSL modem, disconnect everything but a single ethernet cable from your modem to your PC, reboot your PC, count to 30 while hopping on one foot, and say the alphabet backwards first

      <Obligatory Dick Van Dyke episode tribute>
      Swing it over your head, and scream like a chicken.
      </Obligatory Dick Van Dyke episode tribute>

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    3. Re:Obviously... by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      To be fair to Verizon DSL, their tech support line does ask you if you're using Windows, a Mac, Linux, or something else before transferring you to the appropriate person. I recently switched my DSL service and I was shocked that they actually acknowledge the existence of non-Windows computers.

      Of course, their tech support people once I got through were fairly clueless, insisting first that my old DSL provider hadn't shut off my service yet, despite the fact that a Verizon page stating that my PPPoE password was wrong came up when I fired up a browser (and weren't easily persuaded that it would be really difficult for their site to hijack all http traffic if I wasn't actually on their network), and then when I finally convinced them to give me a password, informed me that the server that generates passwords was down and I'd have to call back later.

      But three calls later when the server was back up, they did seem to know how to start setting up the Network preference pane, before I interrupted them because I actually knew what I was doing (and, of course, because I have a router that doesn't care whether I'm using a Mac or Windows box while I'm configuring it)

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:Obviously... by Alioth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tech support scripts? Sounds like you were talking to a very short shell script!

    5. Re:Obviously... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Switch to Verizon business service. Sure, it's 60% more expensive, but in exchange you get no PPPoE, static IPs, no silly blocked ports or server restrictions, and intelligent tech support that answers the phone quickly. I've only had to deal with them once so far, but it took about 45 seconds for me to explain to the tech why I thought the problem was on their end, the guy confirmed and fixed the problem.

    6. Re:Obviously... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Actually, I switched to Verizon from an ISP with no PPPoE, static IPs, and who let me run whatever servers I wanted on my machine because the regular residential service is much cheaper than I was paying. Well, it's also 4x faster, which was a bigger factor in finally getting around to giving up running my own mail and web servers and switiching.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    7. Re:Obviously... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I installed ubuntu linux on my sisters home system on a holiday. DSL didn't work straight way so I called the provider on the next business day

      Me: My sisters DSL router is not accepting her password through its web interface.

      Tech: OK can you give me the account details? Thanks [pause] no I can see that its connected now.

      Me: what was wrong?

      Tech: Nothing was wrong. It must have started working a minute ago when you switched it on.

      Me: But I'm not home at the moment. We left it running.

      Tech: I think I'll end the conversation now...

    8. Re:Obviously... by soluzar22 · · Score: 1

      "Sir... Sir... I'm going to have to ask you to find your Start Button."
      "I have OSX"
      "Sir... I understand, but I need to walk you through this. Please locate your Start button."
      "You don't understand - I'm on a Mac, I don't have a Start button."
      "Sir... You're not making this any easier. Once we go through this we can identify your issue."
      "Don't pretend this is my problem. The problem is that you don't understand how to do the job you are paid to do. Get me your supervisor, pronto."

      Fixed.

    9. Re:Obviously... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      before I interrupted them because I actually knew what I was doing (and, of course

      When they won't let you interrupt the script, I play along.

      "Do this"
      *me, not actually doing anything* "Yup."
      "Now do this"
      "*still not doing anything* "Yup."
      "Gee you're quick at this, you must have done it before!"
      "You don't know the half of it"...

  8. Verizon have been jerks for quite awhile by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I ran a bulk-sending system (legitimate!) to email Frontier Airline's frequent flyer members, and Verizon was the biggest single problem getting mail through. I don't think I ever did get them to accept our runs at all.

    The big thing they already had in place was that they want to connect back on port 25 to the sending system AND make sure it responds initially with the same name it's using to send mail out. Not a bad thing overall, I suppose, but I can see how it would block quite a few messages from providers that use separate sending servers from their receiving servers. I finally had to set up SMTPFWDD on both outgoing servers to accept connections and silently drop any emails they get, that helped, but I think they still rate-limited heavily.

    I'd say if you depend on getting your email, Verizon's not a good ISP to use.

    1. Re:Verizon have been jerks for quite awhile by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      I've been having the same problem with a program that emails customers (non-bulk).
      I suspected that they were doing something like that...

      Have you tried SPF?

      If that doesn't work, I suppose masquerade-as on the relay server might work.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    2. Re:Verizon have been jerks for quite awhile by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Right, nothing new. They got hit by a class action suit for blocking most or all email from Europe, and my attempts to get them to allow email from my Hushmail account were surreal ("We don't support Hushmail", "We can't do that [adjust the spam filter]", and so on). It took umpteen phone calls before they would even admit that it was a spam filter problem.

      A newsletter writer and consultant I know refers to carrier-offered mail and news as "value-subtracted services" and that's the kind of thing he has in mind.

  9. from annoyances-and-other-corporate-bothers? by endrue · · Score: 1

    How about the holy-crap-thank-you-for-the-whole-error-message-wh ere-is-the-stack-trace department?

    - Andrew

    --
    I meta-moderate because I care.
  10. Now thats rich. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Re:Now thats rich. by johnfink · · Score: 1

      The linked items don't seem to be about Verizon, but users under Verizon's service. You know, like, anyone with a X@Verizon.net address?

    2. Re:Now thats rich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't change the fact that we've rejected 337 connections from verizon dsl customers (on a single MX) since the logfile rotated on Sunday. We're in the UK and don't trade internationally. Now consider that most large ISP's worldwide don't filter outbound SMTP ports and you may begin to appreciate the scale of the problem.

    3. Re:Now thats rich. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are about companies who are spammers, who Verizon is willingly and knowingly continuing to provide connectivity to. And by 'connectivity', I'm referring to leased lines, server colocation, etc - a little bit more than just an emailbox for something@verizon.net

      Wether Verizon's TOS allows them to disconnect customers who are spammers are not I'm not sure, but it probably does. That they choose not to says a lot.

      The spam filtering problem wont be solved by filtering or hiding spam - it will only ever be solved by refusing to permit known persistent ongoing spammers connectivity from which to spam with.

  11. Re:Teenage Wildlife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had me, then you lost me.

  12. I think that's a different job by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "I warned [a tech support supervisor] that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand."

    Having worked in tech support for a large company, I can assure you that the position of supervisor for a tech support call centre really doesn't have nearly as much influence on coprorate public relations as you seem to think that it has.

    Most of the people in her position would be surprised to find out that any one from the head office even knows that they exist, let alone cares about what they do or asks their opinion on issues like PR. It's normal to be annoyed when a company like Verizon screws up like this, but lashing out at the tech support staff just because they're the easist people to reach really doesn't help anybody.

    1. Re:I think that's a different job by CRMeatball · · Score: 2, Funny

      Having many friends who work in call centers for "tech support", they tell me this supposed "supervisor" is actually just the person sitting next to them.

    2. Re:I think that's a different job by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Thats just another way of saying "I'm no good at my job". Whether you feel appreciated by your corporate overlords or not, you're a customer facing part of the company and you are therefore every bit as important to PR as sales. Even more so in a large way - anyone calling tech support *already has a problem* and your attitude and ability to solve that problem are a *huge* PR influence.

    3. Re:I think that's a different job by CaptCovert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's much easier to cause a problem than to solve one. Sure, you could start a 'PR Nightmare' in a low-paying customer-facing position, but you're not empowered in the slightest to actually solve them. It's not as if the 'supervisor' in a tech support centre has the authority or influence to actually change anything, especially in a company as large as Verizon. Just as important to PR as sales? Not really. Sales (executives in the larger companies) get to actually change PR. Tech support merely tows the line....

    4. Re:I think that's a different job by VGR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Verizon keeps the support centers completely isolated from any of Verizon's actual workings. I'm pretty sure the support people have no ability to contact anyone at Verizon, no matter how far a call is "escalated." This way, Verizon can happily ignore complaints and/or drag its feet as much as it wishes. What are us customers going to about it? Verizon is an entrenched monopoly. It owns the lines. Except in some very rare cases, our only choice is to suck it down.

      What you say is true, of course. It's not the fault of the support center. But there's no one else who can take the heat, and Verizon has set it up that way deliberately. I'd rather we continue to fume at the support center until it becomes clear to them that they're being screwed by Verizon corporate as much as we are. Eventually Verizon will get a reputation for only being able to retain unskilled idiots in their support center, which will hurt their name brand. Which will hamper their attempts to branch out into other areas of business where they're not a monopoly.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go away.
    5. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Tech support merely tows the line....
      I was about to correct you for spelling.....but I found it much too apt a description.
       
      /poor sob stuck in IT tech-support hell
      //You haul Sixteen Tons, whadaya get?
    6. Re:I think that's a different job by Minwee · · Score: 1

      "Eventually"? From what I have heard that train has already left the station.

    7. Re:I think that's a different job by venicebeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's normal to be annoyed when a company like Verizon screws up like this, but lashing out at the tech support staff just because they're the easist people to reach really doesn't help anybody.

      I disagree. Part of the what is so frustrating about dealing with a company like Verizon is the massive diffusion of responsibility. It is almost impossible to get a hold of someone who is really responsible and accountable to you, because everyone's job is so specialized and compartmentalized. If they can't solve the problem themselves, they should take reponsibilty for finding someone who can. We should hold each individual we contact responsible as a representative of the company.

    8. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most of the people in her position are, in fact, employed by an outsourced call center - likely either in Canada or in Dallas/Ft. Worth; At best, they are the people who managed to make people /feel/ /better/ (not necessarily solve the problem) and get them to hang up quickly - over a period of nine months to a year, and are then bumped to a level II tech.

      I worked at one of these outsourcers. Most of the intelligent & ethical tech pros there were diligently finding other employment as fast as they could. I interviewed for a position /at verizon/ and when the offer letter turned up, told them "No, I have ethics" - after they illegally told several of my co-workers that they could not be hired because of a non-existent no-hire agreement, and they all took other job offers, at lower rates. Not to mention the European "spam blackhole" which ate everything from Europe, period - no explanations and the whitelisting process never actually worked.

      The upshot is: The tech you talk to on the phone has few or no options for actually solving your problems, it is actually contrary to his job interest to invest time in solving your problems, and the supervisors also have no power and are the ones most proficient in convincing people quickly that there is no problem, no jabba yo wadda.

      And I have little option but to remain Anonymous Coward - Verizon & the outsourcers have really dim views of people being critical of their lack of ethics.

    9. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I am willing to pay $20 a month more for a third party DSL over Verizon copper. At least the third party delivers service for the money while Verizon only delivers the bill and demands for payment.

      Verizon has Tech support? No way. They have idiots answering the phones who can only read a script. Their brains are set to off. The only time I was in contact with a competent person at Verizon was the time I complained to their sales department that they were not deliverng on their marketing promises. The sales person had a real live technical person with a functioning brain contact me. She helped me to resolve the problem by actually going through a diagnostic process at her end of the connection.

      However, after several experiences of being "off line" for days (up to five) at a time drove me back to dialup access until the new third party ISP came on line. A 56k connection that worked was much better than a DSL connection that didn't. I found one that cost me less than $9 a month for nation wide access. I still keep the dial up connection subscription active - just in case.

    10. Re:I think that's a different job by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Absolutely right! Moderators, mod parent WAY up!

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    11. Re:I think that's a different job by samureiser · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree. I did tech support for a while for an institution of over 50,000 and I was reminded of the Dilbert comic where he's describing the org chart.

      "See that coffee stain on the carpet?"
      "That's you?"
      "No, that's my manager. I would be under the carpet."
      "Is there any possibility of me talking with somebody who can make a decision?"
      "Let me check... Wally, what's a 'decision?'"
      "I don't know... sounds like something our competitors do."


      Long story short, even when the higher ups would ask us for advice (e.g. communications, asking us to review a notice they were sending out) we would still be ignored. At best, we were treated like resources instead of as actual people or employees.

      Lashing out at tech support definitely doesn't help. If they're good, they're probably more aggravated since they have to deal with being forcibly ineffectual all day.

    12. Re:I think that's a different job by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      What are us customers going to about it? Verizon is an entrenched monopoly. It owns the lines. Except in some very rare cases, our only choice is to suck it down.

      That's why you Americans need regulation, not de-regulation. Get a proper regulator who will bitchslap the incumbent monopoly when they suck, and force them to allow competition over the lines they supervise, but don't own. Like ours does.

    13. Re:I think that's a different job by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      my sister's fiance works for http://www.calltech.com/ and they are the ones who handle verizon dsl.
      according to him, one of the things that can get you a promotion is having a high percentage of problems solved.
      you start out as a tier 1 then get promoted to tier 2 then 3.

      if I understand correctly to get your call routed higher than the initial tier 1 you either have to talk for to a tier one for 15 minutes or have 4 unresolved calls in a few days.

      under this system it would seem like they are trying to make it dificult to get your call to the people.

      Since the tech support is being outsourced I wonder if the only communication verizon gets is a bill each month.

    14. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how'd that British Leyland thing work out for you guys? oh, right.

    15. Re:I think that's a different job by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      When a customer has to escalate from "I'm paying you money for this to work, please fix it" up to "You are making your entire company look bad by your refusal to fix this problem", don't you think the customer should get the courtesy of talking to someone who can at an absolute minimum *understand* the issue?

      If I ran a company, and I had an employee who knew of an impending PR problem and did nothing to fix it and did nothing to alert the higherups, I would offer an outplacement package consisting of a cardboard box.

    16. Re:I think that's a different job by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't as simple as regulation vs. deregulation, it's an issue with a bad market model. Specifically, there are regulations that offer total local monopolies on data services.

      The current regulations prevent competition. Either it needs to be legal for other companies to run their own lines, or it needs to be illegal for the line owners to provide data services. (Or the government needs to step in and provide decent telecom service, but that has it's own large set of problems)

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    17. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very bottom tier starts out as Tier 2. If they drag their feet for 15 minutes, to ensure low talktimes, they can then escalate the call to a Tier 3. There is no such thing as a Tier 1 at VOL. If a customer gets pissed off and asks for a supervisor, they are then transferred to a "supervisor", which is essentially a glorified Tier 3 that receives no more compensation and handles a whole heck of a lot angrier customers. If the customer states at any time during the call "I am frustrated" or "I'm tired of waiting", if they get angry and start yelling, if they've called more than X amount of times in the past couple of days, & a whole crapload of other qualifiers, the Tier 2 can immediately (and is trained to) transfer the customer to the "supervisor". Verizon has been slowly taking away any ability the Tier 2 once had to actually do their jobs and troubleshoot and instead essentially have them answering phones and transferring calls to "supervisors" to deal with.
      The bottom line is Verizon truely doesn't give a shit and they make it beyond impossible for their own outsourced tech support to even do their job. If there is a real problem that's not on the customer's own computer and a ticket gets escalated to the MCO, half the time the ticket gets shot down due to Verizon's lovely automated bulk testing system which is a complete failure and causes so many callbacks that it is sickening.
      It won't get fixed. There have been numerous intelligent, hard-working, dedicated individuals fighting with their own callcenters and Verizon for YEARS to make things manageable only to be told in no uncertain terms that NOONE CARES.

    18. Re:I think that's a different job by CRiMSON · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is, it's a outsourced call center, Verizon gives 2 shits about the call center. The person in the call center is a script reader trained to read a script and answer questions, if they can't it goes to someone without a script (tier 2) who may seem more important, but is general just as a helpless (not at helping you, but at actually doing anything, cause I'm sure verizon has pretty much cut communication to the point, a couple reports are fed up daily, like this is now a big issue, we had 70% call volume for Y issue).

      So the mail team at verizon runs off and does this spam change, they don't notify anyone, and if they do, you can bet your wallet the outsourced contracted call center will not get a memo stating the change. (should they? yes, you figure it would do nothing but help, but we all know every company does everything perfect 100% of the time).

      So your going to fire the call center guy who is probably hearing this from the people on the phone who are now yelling cause of lost email, etc. When this person has no power, no way to change a thing. (accept maybe your password). Kinda harsh.

      --
      oogly boogly!
    19. Re:I think that's a different job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you call VOL support, you immediately get a tier2

      if you've called numerous times in the past week, you get a special tier2 agent... a "chronic" agent.

      if a regular t2 call goes past a certain time, you're handed off to a tier3. chronic agents don't get the luxury of handing off calls.

  13. The Fragmenting Of The Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have read articles over the past few years talking about concern over future fragmenting of the Internet. A few years back I didn't think such a thing would ever be possible, I thought we all needed each others networks to keep the world coherent. How ever more and more incidents such as this one, things like Yahoo and AOL charge for teird email, BellSouth wanting to charge for teird bandwidth, and many other "black lists" on the Net have got me very concerned. And these things tend to only get the spot light thrown on them when it some problem between BIG companies, in this case Gmail users being block to Verizon customers. What about all the thousands of times that the little business running their own email server gets blocked? I help maintane a LOT of small / medium sized business servers, many companies choose to host their own mail. Black listing gets to be more and more of a problem, one idiot in your subnet gets a virus infection and all of a sudden major ISPs email servers are blocking your ISPs entire subnet!!

    I just hope some of the technologies we are all working on now, such as SPF, will prevent us from splitting into smaller networks again. Or worse, all paying huge fees to a handful of uber large monopolies for Net access, teird at that...

  14. Resistance is useless by amstrad · · Score: 2, Funny

    Attempts to contact Verizon to verify claims have been met with resistance.

  15. looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Verizo by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sytem from Verizon is a step in the right direction. AT&T's spam blocking is totally lame, wish they would learn a thing or two from their competitors. I do admin my own domains but keep my at&t for special purposes. It is possible to filter over 99% of spam through a combination of techniques.

  16. Verizon and Public Perception by everphilski · · Score: 0

    I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand

    Meh. Some of us can't complain. They have excellent coverage in the midwest, compared to a lot of carriers. My parents have it, my siblings have it, my wife and I both have it, most of our friends have Verizon cell coverage... we all talk for free. I only spend maybe 20 minutes a month talking on "paid" minutes. Rates are reasonable compared to what I hear some people are paying for Cingular, etc. I haven't found a reason to complain yet...

    1. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VZ and VZW are two separate companies anymore, so while your post may be entirely true, it's pretty irrelevant to this article.

    2. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by mdobossy · · Score: 1

      Heh.. just wait until they start changing the playing field on you.. advertise the next great phone (which is 7 generations in technology behind every other carrier) with 100 brand new features, then deliver 20 of those 100 features promising the rest will be enabled in a firmware release, which never comes..

      Just wait until you have service problems with your cell phone, and it takes 2 hours on hold to get ahold of someone who can barely speak english, and is clearly reading off a script and does nothing to fix your problem.

      Just wait until Verizon is the only DSL/broadband choice in your area, and it takes them 4 weeks, yes, 4 weeks to flip the switch to turn on your DSL.. Had the modem plugged in for that long, and they just took their sweet little old time to turn it on..

      Just wait until your land line mysteriously goes out, and it takes them 2 weeks to send someone out to fix it.

      Oh, and how about the old "this slip is pink, so you must have dunked your cell phone in the water" trick.. I hold up a piece of paper to the sticker, and it is as white as the white piece of paper..

      Verizon- we never stop working for you (well, unless it isn't within our profit margins, or it will require us to have a competent employee do some work).

    3. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company with as many customers as Verizon is going to have happy customers.

      A company's response to unhappy customers is far more revealing than its response to happy customers.

    4. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That use of "anymore" is an abomination, and makes my head hurt. Please stop that.

    5. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by LMacG · · Score: 1

      Verizon Wireless has almost nothing in common with Verizon "The Phone Company."

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    6. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by Peyna · · Score: 1

      From Dictionary.com:

      anymore Audio pronunciation of "anymore" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-môr, -mr)

      adv.

            1.

                        1. Any longer; at the present: Do they make this model anymore?

                        2. From now on: We promised not to quarrel anymore.

            2. Chiefly Midland U.S. Nowadays.

              Regional Note: In standard American English the word anymore is often found in negative sentences:
      They don't live here anymore. But anymore is widely used in regional American English in positive sentences with the meaning "nowadays": "We use a gas stove anymore" (Oklahoma informant in DARE). Its use, which appears to be spreading, is centered in the South Midland and Midwestern states, as well as in the Western states that received settlers from those areas. The earliest recorded examples are from Northern Ireland, where the positive use of anymore still occurs.

      Looks to me like the parent's use of "anymore" is entirely appropriate.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Verizon and Public Perception by everphilski · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/GlobalNavContro llerServlet

      Uh, Verizon Vireless = verizon the phone company. The check I write out each month for cell phone service is written to "Verizon Wireless." I think you are confused...

  17. VZ should greylist and then bogofilter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My spam dropped 90% after I implemented a greylist, that just tells first time IPs to try and reconnect at a later time.

    The rest of it is filtered by bogofilter that does bayesian filtering.

    VZ could easily do the same, and when someone registers (or doesn't do anything) a good email that IP / sender goes into a whitelist. After a month they've solved their spam problem.

    Right now it sounds like they have a clusterfuck on their hands. Honestly I'm not surprised.

  18. I'm not all that surprised by DarthChris · · Score: 1

    Something like this had to happen sooner or later. I have my Hotmail account's junk filters set to exclusive (address book only) and I still get junk in my inbox.

    --
    Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
    1. Re:I'm not all that surprised by robogun · · Score: 1

      Hotmail's junk filters are valueless. Your only option is to block the sender's email, or slide the protection level, whatever that is, over some more.

      Just about any other service will let you filter on subject, header, body, filter out domain, etc.

    2. Re:I'm not all that surprised by utlemming · · Score: 1

      I bought my own domain name and ran that for a while. I started doing that after my Hotmail account was getting a hundred SPAM messages a day. My SPAM dropped to nearly zero until I got on the radars of the SPAM folks. Then it went up gradually for two years until all I could do was to delete an email account for a week and then reinstate it. That would help significantly. But that method would only work for about six months.

      Recently I migrated my email from self hosted over to GMail for domains. Nothing gets through except for maybe one or two a week, if that. One account that I have has over 650 SPAM messages recieved in just three weeks. But my inbox is fine.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    3. Re:I'm not all that surprised by nagora · · Score: 1
      One account that I have has over 650 SPAM messages recieved in just three weeks.

      650 a week! Pah! I self-host and I'm currently getting more than one spam attempt per second, 24/7. I have about 1 per month geting through, but recently my girlfiend's account has started to leak spam at the rate of 1 per day. I've not worked out why these ones are getting through yet.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:I'm not all that surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I self-host and I'm currently getting more than one spam attempt per second, 24/7. I have about 1 per month geting through


      BS

  19. Update on the blocking by aviancarrier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sometime this morning two of my email addresses got whitelisted and could get through again to Verizon Online. Earlier in the morning I received form emails from Verizon's whitelist group saying they have attempted to contact the blocked company/domain.

    Regarding the person who accused me of being a spammer: No. Just a husband trying to email my wife's VZ account.

    Regarding the "lashing" out at the customer service supervisor: I was trying to get her to help her own company out. The fact that she was not told anything about a new level of spam filtering nor had (she claims) a way to contact a manager on a weekend about a PR problem may be a standard problem for that level of supervisor, but I wanted to give her a way to be a hero internally and stop a PR problem from getting worse.

    1. Re:Update on the blocking by AFCArchvile · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Regarding the "lashing" out at the customer service supervisor: I was trying to get her to help her own company out. The fact that she was not told anything about a new level of spam filtering nor had (she claims) a way to contact a manager on a weekend about a PR problem may be a standard problem for that level of supervisor, but I wanted to give her a way to be a hero internally and stop a PR problem from getting worse.

      This has been posted a bit in the main thread, but I'll restate it: the "customer service supervisor" you were talking to may have very few, if any, connections to Verizon corporate. For almost all large-scale customer service operations (where there are thousands or even millions of customers, and hundreds or thousands of customer support calls each month), the main company outsources their customer service department to an outside company (not necessarily overseas; there are a lot of companies that operate call centers within the US and Canada). This is because it would be too expensive for the company itself to hire the 24/7 staff, the call center telephone switchboard infrastructure, the office space, etc. to host its own customer service department. The staff under these companies are trained in the product (at varying levels of completeness, unfortunately), and have the customer service calls routed to their call center, where they attend to them. If the first customer service representative is unable to satisfy the issue with the tools at hand, they escalate to the next level, which could be ANYONE (a regular-hours engineer specialising in the issue, a call center representative with more experience in the product, or yet another pool of customer service representatives). Customer service trees can grow to have many levels, so if your issue actually did go to the top, you might be on the phone for hours or days at a time (or more likely, have to leave your number and be called back at some time).

      Customer service operations are "outsourced" because the company providing the product does not want to spend the money to develop their own customer service infrastructure when they could just contract another company to use an existing infrastructure to receive service calls after an agreed-upon training curriculum and procedure policy. This is becoming a lot more common these days since businesses have been looking at ways to cut costs from every aspect of business, usually with disregard to the company's long-term well-being and public image. And of course, these call centers are only connected by their contract to the company producing the product, so there really is no way for them to relay company image issues, short of a weekly call statistics report.

      Well, that about covers it; welcome to the brave new world of consumer products and services. This is the price of lower prices.

      --
      "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
    2. Re:Update on the blocking by Stween · · Score: 1

      Regarding the "lashing" out at the customer service supervisor: I was trying to get her to help her own company out. The fact that she was not told anything about a new level of spam filtering nor had (she claims) a way to contact a manager on a weekend about a PR problem may be a standard problem for that level of supervisor, but I wanted to give her a way to be a hero internally and stop a PR problem from getting worse.

      And while your intentions were no dount good, you probably came across as arrogant. Depending on the temperament of the staff member you were talking to at the call centre, you may have a note against your name to this effect, warning future call centre staff who take your calls.

      There's a good chance that the supervisor you spoke to wasn't a supervisor at all. If she was, she doesn't have much more control over anything than the first line of defense did. As has been pointed out by others, the call centre was probably not run by Verizon.

      Also, it's fair to say that lots of people taking these calls don't care for any advice you might like to offer them; they're doing what they've been told to do, and if what you're asking is outside their responsibilities/training, then it's not their problem. Period. There's normally too many incompentent middle-managers for anyone to feel compelled to pass this sort of advice up the chain of command in these sorts of call centres.

  20. Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    ISPs provide bandwidth only. Find a Real Email Provider if you want decent email service. If you use your home.luser@verizon... email address, you deserve what you get. No, you aren't Paying Them For It. You're paying them for connectivity.

    1. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have an email service, they're obviously providing more than just bandwidth..

    2. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by elix3r · · Score: 1

      agreed!! Its part of the deal when you sign up, so obv you ARE paying for it.

    3. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Atraxen · · Score: 1

      That sounds suspiciously like "you paid for a running car, not a working horn or radio." If they advertise a service bundle, they need to deliver.

      Your DIY/hire a craftsman approach to this problem is certainly one way to handle it, but the average user has a right to expect the entire purchased service bundle to work.

      --
      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
    4. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by tddoog · · Score: 1
      I set up the accounts that they gave me (I think I get like 5 from Comcast) and then I signed them up at porn sites and free mac mini/ipod sites. I use gmail for my email.

      I know I am costing everyone money for me to have a little sick satisfaction, but it helps keep my spirits up when I am on hold for billing/tech support.

    5. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      speaking of which, does anyone know how to get bandwith and bandwith only at a lower price than will all the extra crap? (I'm in SBC territory)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Totally wrong.

      That sounds suspiciously like "you paid for a running car, not a working horn or radio." If they advertise a service bundle, they need to deliver.

      They need to deliver? Or what? Are you going to leave them for the competition? This is like saying Microsoft "needs" to deliver software which is more reliable, immune to viruses, etc. People have been complaining about MS forever, but they still keep buying their products.

      You can complain about your ISP's email all you want, but in the end, what can you do? The only thing you can do is cancel your service, because they're certainly not going to care about your whining to tech support. If you're in a metro area, you probably have precisely two choices for broadband: DSL from your phone company, and cable modem service from your cable company. Look around and you'll probably find that no one's particularly thrilled with either one. So if you dump Verizon because their email sucks, you'll have to go with Comcast or whoever (and of course, you'll have to buy a new cable modem since your DSL modem certainly won't work). Now what do you do when you find out their email sucks too?

      If you're smart, the only sensible way to deal with this mess is to just concentrate on the service's main offering: internet connectivity. As long as that's working ok, don't worry about all the stupid extras. You can get free email from gmail, hotmail, yahoo, etc. Or you can pay a little and get it somewhere else. Either way, you can choose an email provider on its own merits, instead of being tied into something sub-par with your ISP. And as a big bonus, if the day ever comes that you get tired of your ISP's poor connectivity, you can change to their one competitor without having to change your email address and go through the hassle of telling everyone what your new email address is.

    7. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Atraxen · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think it's fair to say "need to deliver". Their terms of service are a contract - they provide x, I provide $. Failure on either of our parts is a breach of that contract. In the end, the only recourse most consumers have is changing services (if possible) - litigation is effectively pointless given the effort:gain ratio.

      That said, I'm all for the companies not bundling services I don't need or use (I'll be sticking to my university account). But, if it's included in the contract I signed, I want the option of utilizing it. And if it doesn't work as advertised, it doesn't work. That's my point of view.

      --
      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
    8. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give your neighbor who has internet connectivity a wireless router, pay them for your bandwidth.

    9. Re:Why are you using Verizon email anyway? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Again, I ask you: what are you going to do when they fail to deliver? Change services? What happens when the ONE competitor they have is just as bad? Are you going to change back?

      You can talk all you want about how companies should perform according to your TOS contract, but when your only realistic option is to discontinue the service, and there's only two companies with the service which are both bad, you have no real choice. The only realistic choice is to accept the poor performance on the non-essential service, and find another alternative.

  21. verizon's response by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

    Emails to Verizon to find out more information have gone unanswered...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:verizon's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the greatest use of their spam filter - blocking unwanted complaints.

  22. Mod Parent up by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    That page is pretty interesting. Especially the gethuman database

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, have been down-modded for being a Karma WHORE

    2. Re:Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm...I was't trying to karma whore.

      I was trying to make sure that such a fascinating page got modded up.

      Crap, I should have posted anonymously. My mistake.

      PS: I don't care much about my karma, as long as it's not negative.

    3. Re:Mod Parent up by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Nah, you didnt make any misstake.
      The mod was just a knee-jerk retard.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  23. Messages in bottles. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems like it.

    I used to send all my email out of my own mailserver, out of my home firewall/router/"box-in-a-closet" machine.

    Recently -- like within the last six months or so, I've noticed an alarming number of domains that aren't receiving my emails. And no, I haven't been blackholed or otherwise put on anyone's shit list, nor am I running an open relay. The mailserver is perfectly well-behaved, standards compliant, and only relays from within my home LAN.

    I also don't mass-mail or do any other sort of sketchy activity, I just always liked having my own mailserver and never having to worry about when my ISPs (or Google's, or my web hosting providers') was going to flake out on me. But it's becoming nearly impractical to do. I'm never sure if an email that I sent out has actually gotten through, or if it's just been silently eaten by some spam filter somewhere.

    The worst offender that I've found so far is Comcast; I haven't been able to get any messages through at all to Comcast subscribers, and they don't provide back any sort of acknowledgment that a message has been blocked. Every time I send anything to them, it's firing a shot into the darkness.

    I hate spam as much as anybody else (probably more than some); I'm in favor of using some of those Federal "computer crimes" laws -- the ones that have harsher penalties for electronically violating a system than if you walked in and stole it in person -- against spammers. See what 20 years of pound-me-in-the-ass prison followed by another 10 or 15 of no-computer probation (and consequent unemployment) does for their attitude. Or there are the always popular vigilante death squads, I could find a warm place in my heart for them, too. Either of those would be preferable to the current patchwork system of blacklists, whitelists, greylists, RBLs, and unilateral policies on the part of ISPs that break up the nature of the network.

    Sending an email shouldn't be like tossing a message in a bottle into the ocean, but that's how it's getting to be with some ISPs.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Messages in bottles. by winkydink · · Score: 1

      If you are in an CIDR block that is listed in any of the big DULs, you're hosed.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Messages in bottles. by nuzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I used to send all my email out of my own mailserver, out of my home firewall/router/"box-in-a-closet" machine.

      > The worst offender that I've found so far is Comcast;

      Sorry, but you're sending email from a residential IP with a rdns of something like "dsl-123-234-12-56.dyn.myisp.net" and you're calling comcast the offender?

      The days of running your own mail server on a residential account are over -- blame the thousands of zombie spammers on your /16 alone. Sorry that it's come to residential accounts being treated like second class citizens, but we gave this class of account YEARS to clean up its act, and it's only gotten worse.

      You can get mail hosting for like five bucks a month. It's the cost of spam. Deal with it, because we sure as hell are.

      Signed,
      the world's mail administrators

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    3. Re:Messages in bottles. by dekemoose · · Score: 4, Informative

      A large number of mail providers arbitrarily block any mail originating from net blocks identified as being used by "consumer" ISP's for dynamically assigned IP addresses. It's kind of lame, but also very effective at stopping large amounts of spam. Use your ISP's mail server as a smart host, or (if you don't trust the clue level of your ISP) one of the many SMTP relay services out there, I believe DynDns does one.

    4. Re:Messages in bottles. by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      I have a similar setup - but within the comcast domain. However, I relay all my outgoing mail thruogh comcast's smtp server (have to because they block outgoing port 25 access) so the receiving system's smtp servers see the mail as coming from a comcast network. I don't seem to lose things with this setup. Is it possible for your personal mail server to do this with your ISP's server too?

    5. Re:Messages in bottles. by armus · · Score: 1

      i also run a mail server at home. been using speakeasy (static) for the past 5 years. no problems with end users receiving emails ... maybe you need to change your ISP? -armus

    6. Re:Messages in bottles. by skinnygmg · · Score: 1

      maybe this is a way for mialhosts to get us to use thier mail service, or thier competitors. they make money because you either pay, or look at gobs of ads. if they are big enough, and they get together with other big hosts, noone can get email form anyone but them!!

    7. Re:Messages in bottles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since reverse DNS for your mailhost can't be resolved to the same FQDN as your MX record, a lot of modern SMTP servers will block your traffic. Fixing that will allow your traffic to get through to the ISPs that are currently dropping it(Comcast, AOL, etc)

    8. Re:Messages in bottles. by david.given · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Recently -- like within the last six months or so, I've noticed an alarming number of domains that aren't receiving my emails. And no, I haven't been blackholed or otherwise put on anyone's shit list, nor am I running an open relay. The mailserver is perfectly well-behaved, standards compliant, and only relays from within my home LAN.

      It's also, I'm afraid, going to be automatically blackholed --- as you're finding out --- because you're inside a slum IP block. Nobody trusts mail sent from a residential IP range any more. The solution's easy, and is to use your ISP's own mail server as a smarthost; you can still receive mail --- assuming your ISP doesn't block incoming port 25 connections --- but if send directly, nobody will listen.

    9. Re:Messages in bottles. by Buran · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but the guy you replied to is doing nothing wrong and is going out of his way to make sure his server plays nice? And you accuse him (or her) of being an idiot and tell him it's all his fault anyway? Wow. Only on slashdot.

    10. Re:Messages in bottles. by Renegrade · · Score: 1

      Many domains refuse email if there's no PTR record for the sending host's IP address - might want to see if your ISP has given any to your connection. (nslookup , or similar)

      I haven't seen any evidence that it goes beyond just seeing that one exists, yet, though.

      Plus, as other posters have mentioned, many organizations block any mail from consumer-class connections, or will block entire IP ranges just because there's one or two bad apples in the bunch.

      I'm starting to wonder if we're going to need some sort of centrally managed, authenticated-host system or something.

      I miss the old days, sometimes..

    11. Re:Messages in bottles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are sending mail from a dynamic IP address I won't accept it on my mailserver, and neither will any other responsible mailadmin. And I've been blocking dynamic IP pools for as long as there have been RBLs.

    12. Re:Messages in bottles. by Jerim · · Score: 1

      Administration is all a part of running your own mail server. You aren't taking a shot in the dark when emailing Comcast subscribers. You yourself state that none of them have gone through. So you already know the outcome. I would contact Comcast's tech department and see if they can tell you why you are blocked.

      It may be that you have a misconfigured setting so that there server won't talk to you which recently happened to us. The servers on both ends have to be able to communicate. The Comcast server may be receiving the helo command in way it doesn't understand. Or they are probably using a public database backend for their email filtering. You will need to find which one they use and contact that company to have them remove. You could be in that database for any number of reasons. Maybe you accidently emailed the wrong person one time, and they reported it as spam.

      There are procedures in place for doing this sort of thing. Then again, running a mail server from home is always an iffy proposition. Many places will block you simply because they just find it suspicious that you are running your own mail server. Usually, by talking with the various parties involved, they get a feel for you not being some evil-doer. Most spamers aren't going to take the time talk to people.

    13. Re:Messages in bottles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I relay all my outgoing mail thruogh comcast's smtp server (have to because they block outgoing port 25 access)
      They do huh?
      Apr 23 xx:xx:xx $host postfix/smtpd[17822]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from c-24-62-147-xx.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.62.147.xx]: 554 <c-24-62-147-xx.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.62.147.xx]> : Client host rejected: PLEASE USE YOUR ISP'S SMTP RELAY; from=<icbmurqtiyidq@brandywineconsult.com> to=<user@domain.tld> proto=SMTP helo=<c-24-62-147-xx.hsd1.nh.comcast.net>
    14. Re:Messages in bottles. by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > And you accuse him (or her) of being an idiot

      Where was the word "idiot" in my reply to him?

      The guy thinks he can still run an outMX on his home broadband, and believes everyone else is trespassing on his right by refusing mail because of this origin. Naive perhaps.

      Ascribing motives of "censorship" and "fascism" to those who blanket-block dynamic IP ranges is idiotic, but I haven't yet seen such a screed. That's when I'll throw out insults. The bar is lower for those who put words in my mouth.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    15. Re:Messages in bottles. by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      I read nuzak's message three times very slowly and carefully and I didn't see anywhere where he said, or even implied, that the parent was an idiot.

      The parent, unfortunately, did not provide enough information to determine the actual problem but nuzak's advice was quite reasonable. Whether it is fair or not, if a significant number of servers are rejecting your email for whatever reason, you are more likely to make progress by changing your own configuration than by trying to get everyone else to change theirs.

      SCM

    16. Re:Messages in bottles. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      The days of running your own mail server on a residential account are over

      I do but I set a static smtp route to the outgoing smtp server of the provider I am using. I get the best of both worlds that way. If optus goes down I can always remove the route with a one line conf change.

    17. Re:Messages in bottles. by realityfighter · · Score: 1

      It isn't just his box-in-closet that has this problem with Comcast. They sporadically won't accept any mail from my dreamhost-managed mail server because they think it's a residential IP.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
    18. Re:Messages in bottles. by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Except nowadays, Optus blocks outbound 25 so your system works while they're up - and when they're down, you can remove the route all you like, you're not going to get anywhere.

    19. Re:Messages in bottles. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Except nowadays, Optus blocks outbound 25 so your system works while they're up - and when they're down, you can remove the route all you like, you're not going to get anywhere.

      Ah I didn't know that. I can still ssh to my co-lo. Thats how I get my email. I don't use optus for inbound mail.

  24. The only reason I'm on Verizon... by nugneant · · Score: 1

    ...is that Comcast is the alternative (that I know of).

    I remember one day the phone line went down. Pfft. Zzt. Nothing. No dialtone, no incoming, and of course no DSL. Called Verizon Support and got level 1'd for two hours. "Did you check the test line?". You fucking robot, did I not just say that three seperate lines, plus the DSL, were all out, and yes I have unplugged each and every phone in every possible combination? The test line isn't going to tell me anything I don't already know.

    Anyway, three days later (can't get an engineer on a weekend, no siree bobsiree) some guy shows up and fixes the issue. Aside from that, and the usual LinkSys router + DSL modem teething troubles, Verizon's been okay, though hardly optimal.

    At least Comcast could get a greasemonkey out here in 24 hours to wiggle the wires and shrug in perplexion, since everything "seemed fine" at the moment. Of course, who cares if the service is quick when the shit's down at least two hours per week? And don't get me started on the cable TV.

    Anyone know of any good, reliable, cheap, non-firewalled broadband in the DC Metro area?

    1. Re:The only reason I'm on Verizon... by terrahertz · · Score: 1

      Anyone know of any good, reliable, cheap, non-firewalled broadband in the DC Metro area?

      Cavalier may fit the bill. And no, I don't work for them, though I am a customer (of both Cavtel and Verizon) and the one Verizon problem I have a year that takes 180 minutes of my time to fix is way more obnoxious than the 3 Cavtel problems I have a year that take a combined 60 minutes to fix.

      --
      Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
    2. Re:The only reason I'm on Verizon... by gclef · · Score: 1

      Speakeasy has a POP in the DC area. If you can get DSL, you can most likely get them. They're not the cheapest out there, but their sysadmin packages include static IPs standard, and they have no problems changing reverse DNS on the IPs they give you to whatever you ask (which is part of why my home mail server is still going...my forward and reverse match).

    3. Re:The only reason I'm on Verizon... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      If you live in Northern VA, get Cox. I have standard cable modem service through them and they have been fantastic. They block a few incoming ports (like 80 and some well-known worm ports), but other than thet they seem to be wide open.

      Great uptime, I can't think of a single outage since I've had them (almost 2 years). I complained about crappy speed when I first moved into my 1960s apartment, the some Cox guy came out and replaced about every coax fitting in the place, plus a few cable runs (where he could get to them).

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    4. Re:The only reason I'm on Verizon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.dns-llc.com/ (aka Britsys.net)
      Con:
      - virtually no phone support. which could be a problem if dsl is down on a weekend. They were just bought by some CA-based company that promises to provide phone support though.
      - outgoing port 25 is blocked
      - 3 times as expensive as Verizon's 15 bucks a month :-)

      Pro:
      - if you can email them, you typically get a response in minutes. The guy who typically responds to my problems knows a lot about what he's doing. If it is Verizon/Covad problem they can (and did) get Verizon technichian there within 24 hours.
      - No other messing up with traffic/ports that I am aware of.

      Anyway, see dslreports.com.

    5. Re:The only reason I'm on Verizon... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Did you call DSL support or Phone support? In my experience, phone support is way better, and they're way more likely to dispatch a tech without going through unnecessary diagnostics.

  25. Even Better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ISP is now offering a digest of my spam emails. So even though I have the filters set to make these spam messages disappear, my ISP conveniently sends me spam to let me know what spam I've gotten. I was going to make a filter to get rid of that message too, but I decided it was only a matter of time before they send me a digest of my digests...

    1. Re:Even Better... by CaptCovert · · Score: 1

      This actually sounds like one of the most useful features for an ISP I've ever really heard of. What ISP do you use?

  26. what a bunch of whiners by pele · · Score: 0, Troll

    nothing is ever good for you, now is it? spam is no good, no spam is no good either. what the hell do you want then? well how about you get rich and get yourself a personal assistant with huge titts that'll sift through all your emails and make you coffee too so you don't have to whine about it anymore?

  27. So why don't these filters block outgoing mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So if these hosts are so spammy, why don't these filters block the outgoing mail being sent to these hosts??

    The issue of these spam filters and blacklists come up all the time. The one question I don't see being asked (let alone answered) is why these companies don't also bounce back the outgoing mail that their clients send? Perhaps because that would lead to lots and lots of complaints?

    If the filters are good enough to block incomming mail, they should also be good enough to block the outgoing mail.

  28. ISP Blocks by kingradar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a quick note, I run an email service, and I've had the most problems getting past blocks from:

    AOL
    Excite
    Comcast

    The easiest was AOL, they have a number you can call 24 hours a day to get removed (but it takes 48 hours for the removal to take effect). The other two have been blocking mail from my servers for two weeks. I have filled out contact forms, and left voicemails to no avail.

    I haven't recieved a complaint about Verizon yet, but that could be because I have SPF records.

    1. Re:ISP Blocks by ldholtsclaw · · Score: 1

      Bellsouth just started blocking all port 25 connections from Residential DSL (as of last week). Although there's nothing whatsoever about this in their on-line documentation, a call to Tech Support reveals that you can get it unblocked by "upgrading" to "business service". Said "business service," of course, differs only by the lack of blocking and a 1000% increase in the service cost (over $300 for the same bandwidth they charge $39.00 to residential customers).

      Although this is a Good Idea(TM) for compromised Windows machines running SPAMbots, I'm running a secure mail server on my Linux machine and, not only is it secured from open relay, I've also blocked incoming port 25 connections. Why should I have to pay through the nose just to have status emails sent to me at work twice a day?

      Needless to say, everyone I know in the area is busy finding an alternate provider.

    2. Re:ISP Blocks by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      Of course, you could always route those messages through your ISP's server. Postfix and sendmail can do it, Exchange on Windows can do it, hell even the SMTP connector for MS Mail did it. Unless you're trying to say that your ISP is now blocking people from sending email at all?

  29. Such a hassle by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, email spam fighting is always more work than you'll ever have resources available for, and it'll never be 100%.

    Even if you let users manage it, about 60% of them won't have a clue, they'll bollocks it up for themselves, and they won't be able to distinguish between your web appliance and the OEM Norton Antispam which continually misconfigures itself again and again.

    I wonder if we should just ban email altogether so that we can actually get some other work done.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  30. Ironic by mabu · · Score: 1

    This is ironic considering Verizon is one of the major SOURCES of spam. We've ended up wholesale RBL'ing most of their DUL space. Here's a good Sendmail-based blacklist to start with.

    Generally speaking, I think it's a good idea to implement something like this, but the problem with Verizon is that they need to filter port 25 on their broadband IP space first and foremost, like AOL and Bellsouth and many other providers are starting to do.

    Ultimately, what Verizon is doing is not a bad thing. It will force other ISPs to more closely police the illegal traffic on their networks from zombie PCs, but it's ironic that Verizon isn't controlling their own zombie PC traffic before blocking other ISPs SMTP packets.

    1. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with Verizon is that they need to filter port 25 on their broadband IP

      No, they do not need to do that. If you ever had to use Verizon's SMTP servers you would rue the day that happened. They lose as much going out as they do coming in. That would also mean that no person on Verizon could use their hosting service's SMTP. I think sysadmins that port block 25 should be sent to Iraq to have their beheading video taped .. they're as bad as the spammers (willing to screw everyone else for their own benefit).

  31. Verizon? PR problem? You don't say! by AFCArchvile · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand.


    Perhaps she was too jaded from hearing customers complain that Verizon has a PR problem.


    "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."


    From what I've heard (and what I experienced from having their service in the second half of 2000), this is nothing new for Verizon. They're only interested in the money-making aspects of the telecom business, and drag their feet on everything else. The setup of this aggressive new spam filter was probably one of those "money-making" items, since it means far less spam traffic and decreased accusations of hosting spam bots. Of course, when customers start complaining that they can't send email to specific addresses, they have to deal with Verizon's understaffed, undercapable customer service departments, who will most likely be faced with fierce opposition from the suits in opposing the "grand money-saving, liability-reducing spam filter".


    Also, keep in mind that when Verizon acquired MCI, they acquired UUNet, a tier-1 ISP with some serious spam problems of their own. I wouldn't be surprised if taking on UUNet's elephant-on-their-back was part of the rationale behind the new spam filtering policies.

    --
    "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
  32. Stop the presses! by mypalmike · · Score: 1

    This is a major PR issue! I'm sure if you contact them, the New York Times will run a front page article about the lack of a guaranteed response time for Verizon's whitelisting service. That is, unless anything else at all happens on the planet today.

    --
    There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
  33. Can't get past a spam filter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it was a test. Any tech applicant that can't get past a spam filter they don't want to look at anyway. You failed. Ever think of that?

  34. Re:Teenage Wildlife by onedotzero · · Score: 1

    It's a track from his Scary Monsters album, not a line of DVD's promising 'barely legal' actresses!

    Shame...

    --
    onedotzero
    thedigitalfeed.co.uk

  35. google embracing and extending usenet? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
    At first I was thinking, "'discussion at google', doesn't he mean usenet?" But apparently he was correct since google seems to have extended usenet to have their own "groups" that aren't actually in the usenet heirarchy.

    Oh wow, now I see they are also hosting mailing lists as "groups" as well. Way to muddle the terminology; I guess that is the point. I hate marketing/advertising people.

    1. Re:google embracing and extending usenet? by coaxeus · · Score: 0

      Exactly my initial reaction. USEnet has been around for longer than google, the WWW, or any of this stuff, so I almost feel as if it's being disrespected by ignorance like this.

      --
      My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
  36. Right On! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand.

    Oh yeah! Snotty assed customer calls me and starts getting snippy with the "warnings and what-not: "I'm an Internet professional, I know how these things work, I'm a sysadmin, I'm this and that...". Yeah right, I'm all over your problem dude. CLICK.

  37. And netmail.verizon.net now seems to be IE-only? by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    As always, in such things I may be mistaken, or the condition may be transient, but I no longer seem to be able to access their web-based email with Firefox for Windows 1.0. It used to work perfectly. Of course, IE works...

  38. that's sort of a ridiculous attitude by bunions · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saying a phone line tech support manager is bad at her job because she can't do anything about an engineering 'feature' in under two days is impossibly naive.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:that's sort of a ridiculous attitude by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Saying a phone line tech support manager is bad at her job because she can't do anything about an engineering 'feature' in under two days is impossibly naive.

      No, I assure you it's possible.

    2. Re:that's sort of a ridiculous attitude by Nanoda · · Score: 1

      No kidding.
      I spent a few months working tech support for a _major_ ISP in the 'states. If I followed a precise path on the incident report software, I could schedule a truck to go out to your address. I had no way of contacting the depot from whence said truck would be dispatched other than a ~50 character line that the technician may or may not have read.

      I think my supervisor had access to an online form that would send an email to technicians somewhere else, not guaranteed to be read for a few days.

      For most large ISPs, the technician at the other end has the power to screw up your account, and (sometimes) the power to fix it. But if you think they have any ability to get _anything_ filtered up to "head office" et. al., you're sadly mistaken. If you were to call up saying the corporate HQ was on fire, it would be at least a month before anyone with a fire extinguisher got paged.

  39. Huh? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is Verizon blocking any of it's customers' mail by default and then putting the onus on them to fix any problems that arise in the first place? This should be an opt-in service for those who want to make sure they don't miss anything.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Haven't these people ever heard of blocking by exception?

      For 5 years I have been forwarding e-mail from my own domain to my Bellatlantic/Verizon email addy.

      Last night at 6:00 PM without warning or explanation from Verizon all of my email stopped. Zilch.

      I tried sending myself messages using my domain addy and nothing. Not even a bounce message.

      It took me a while to get into the domain and send a message and have it bounce to get one of the justify yourself to Verizon e-mails to figure out what was going on with the e-mail.

      So Verizon's plan looks like bounce 'em all. Force the customer figure it out what the hell is going on and ask us nicely and we may allow you to get your email.

      Now I get to spend a lot of my time trying to convince Verizon that I am not spaming myself. Verizon has put the onus on me, a paying customer, to justify to Verizon's satisfaction why my domain should be Whitelisted.

      This is pure crap from Verizon and the last straw. Calling Verizon is a waste of time. If you can get a tech in under an hour you are lucky, and then talking to these people is like having a conversation with a cinder block.

      The alternative in this neck of the woods is Comcast cable, and it is looking like the lessor of two evils.

  40. spam paranoia rampant by drwho · · Score: 1

    SPEWS is a good example of idiotic spam filtering. They list my site as a spammer because I hosted DNS for a netblock that was grabbed and abused by a spammer. I spent some time on Use(less)Net trying to correct the situation, and was met with suspicion, paranoia, and abuse.

    There's only one place that my site regularly exchanges email with that uses SPEWS, and I know exactly who to talk to for the fix. The problem is, it keeps on happening every couple of months. What a Pain in the Ass.

    1. Re:spam paranoia rampant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one serious or big-time uses SPEWS, so their holier-than-thou puffery really is meaningless.

    2. Re:spam paranoia rampant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if noone important uses it, then why complain about it ?

  41. Are you in the right? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative
    My company implemented my blocking methods and saw an instant reduction in spam from a deluge to a tiny trickle. The three most effective filters are:

    1. Requiring HELO,
    2. Rejecting non-FQDN HELO strings ("foo.bar" will get you in, but "myleetmailserver" won't), and
    3. Rejecting HELO strings that blatantly lie (you're not "localhost" or my public IP address, no matter how many times you ask).

    More and more ISPs are starting to implement the same compliance checks. Would any of these reject your system's mail? Several of our customers had misconfigured outbound servers and we helped them fix their systems. We were only early adopters, though; if we hadn't caught the problem then a major ISP or five would have started rejecting their email without being so helpful.

    Maybe VZ is in the right this time. Are you sure they're not?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Are you in the right? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Still more effective is to check that the remote obeys the sequencing specified in the SMTP protocol, i.e. it does not send commands before it has received the welcome message. Especially when this welcome message consists of multiple lines with continuation markers.
      Most SPAM mailers fail this test.

    2. Re:Are you in the right? by (startx) · · Score: 1

      Those look like easy enough suggestions, now how do I do that in postfix?

      (I know, I know, rtfm & etc)

    3. Re:Are you in the right? by petershank · · Score: 1

      >Those look like easy enough suggestions, now how do I do that in postfix?

      Try following the only link he provided. It has the postfix-specific instructions. You don't even have to RTFM. Just FTFL.

    4. Re:Are you in the right? by dpiven · · Score: 1

      reject_unauth_pipelining is your friend.

    5. Re:Are you in the right? by hacker · · Score: 1

      And how do you do that? I'm interested, even though we run sendmail + dspam here and are at 99.667% accuracy...

    6. Re:Are you in the right? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      With sendmail, there is the "GreetPause" feature. However, it implements only the simplest check (making sure that nothing is received before a single-line greeting message). This blocks open-proxy abusers and the simplest of SPAM mailers (those that connect and fire a batch of SMTP commands and the mail data without checking responses), but the typical botnet spam software usually knows about it and works around it.

  42. Verizon DUL IP space by mabu · · Score: 1

    Here is a list of some of the most troublesome Verizon DUL IP space that spam activity is coming from. You can block port 25 traffic on these class B and Cs since they don't control their own users' zombie PC spamming:

    64.222.104 68.160 68.161.156
    68.162 68.163 70.16
    70.17 70.18 70.18.155
    70.18.11 70.19 70.20
    70.21 70.22 70.23
    70.104 70.105 70.106

    Please excuse the weird format here but the junk filter on SC is annoying.

    70.107 70.108 71.100
    71.101 71.103 71.104
    71.105 71.114 71.116
    71.117 71.118 71.119
    71.123 71.124 71.125
    71.127 71.162 71.241

    It would be nice to line these all up cleanly but it's not possible with the way things are filtered on message submissions.

    71.242 71.243 71.244
    71.247 71.251 71.252
    71.253 71.254 72.65
    129.44.9 138.88 141.149
    141.150 141.151 141.152
    141.153 141.156 141.157
    141.158 151.199 151.200
    162.83 162.84

    Most of the IP space above are DUL/broadband that includes tons of zombie PCs. There should be very little (if any) legitimate SMTP traffic coming from these IP blocks, yet there is, and it's all spam and worm activity.

    1. Re:Verizon DUL IP space by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Well, you'll be blocking a bunch of valid servers, then.

      For instance, one of my clients is a largish nonprofit organization whose Verizon business DSL in is 70.22/16. As it happens, I now handle their outbound mail, but we used to send it directly from their address.

    2. Re:Verizon DUL IP space by mabu · · Score: 1

      Well, you'll be blocking a bunch of valid servers, then.

      For instance, one of my clients is a largish nonprofit organization whose Verizon business DSL in is 70.22/16. As it happens, I now handle their outbound mail, but we used to send it directly from their address.


      With all due respect, this is what your client gets for:

      1. Doing business with spammers. Verizon is a spammer. The spam and worm traffic originates from their system. They don't do anything about it. They are responsible.

      2. Verizon mixing business IP space with broadband/DUL/n00b space.

      3. Verizon not policing the illegal activity of their customers.

      I don't have any sympathy for them. You shouldn't either. Unfortunately the only way to get ISPs to stop polluting the Internet is to affect them financially, and THE most effective way of doing this is by tainting their IP space so they can't use it for business purposes due to their own irresponsible administration. Tough shit for Verizon. But it's one way for them to be motivated to stop spamming. They will lose business customers because if you use Verizon for broadband, you can't run your own mail relay. Too bad. You need to switch from Verizon to a RESPONSIBLE ISP.

    3. Re:Verizon DUL IP space by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      First, I didn't have anything to do with their choice of providers. I wasn't consulted on this decision; I would have suggested a different provider. But they don't have a lot of money, and Verizon offered them a pretty good deal. As I said, they send no mail from this machine; it all comes through my servers. They just use Verizon for outbound connectivity.

      As a matter of fact, I have no sympathy for Verizon. As I posted elsewhere in this thread I've been blocked repeatedly by their smtp servers for no good reason. But I also don't expect most organizations, and particularly small businesses and nonprofits, to have a clue about whether a particular provider is a "good" or "bad" Internet citizen.

      If you're suggesting that I don't accept mail from the wide array of addresses you proposed, I'd be out of business. I don't accept mail from all Verizon hosts, just like I don't accept mail from all Comcast hosts, terra.com.br hosts, or countless other hosts from around the world. But, in general, I don't ban entire blocks of the IP space. I use an SMTP daemon that reverse-resolves each sending host and examines its ruleset to decide what to do with that message. So I don't accept messages sent from some-random-host.verizon.net that sends a 'MAIL FROM: xyzzy@aol.com' during the SMTP transaction. But I also don't block 70.22/16 either.

      For a mail provider it's much more important to insure that legitimate mail is delivered to their paying customers than it is to "send a message" to a company like Verizon. What's more likely to hurt Verizon is its own customers suddenly being cut off from e-mail correspondents that they hitherto had no problem reaching. The more Verizon engages in reckless anti-spam policies, the more they'll annoy, or even enrage, their own subscribers.

  43. Verizon possibly the worst ISP name ever? by Edzor · · Score: 1

    i dont know if its just me but i could never sign up with Verizon due to its highly annoying name.

      They probably spent thousands on ad people to come up with it.

    [annoying ad guy #1:] We need a name which "encapsulates the broadband generation", something with "reach" and "go ahead qualities" which says "hey, we're here and going places! but we couldnt gave a rat's ass about you customers"
    [annoying ad guy #2:] hmmmmm, yeah it need something distant, but not too distant on the wave...or horizon.....horizon!!
    [annoying ad guy #1:] yeah horizion! Great just what we're looking for....but its missing *IT*
    [annoying ad guy #1:] yeah it defiantly needs *it*....
    [annoying ad guy #2:] yeah....*it*....something on the horizon but its closer.....not unattainable yet still special with pazazz..
    [annoying ad guy #1:] Nearizon..hmmm....Hereizon....!! I GOT IT!
    [annoying ad guy #1:] this is going to be great......HQ will just love it!
    [annoying ad guy #1:] get this VERIZON!!
    [annoying ad guy #2:] get this VERIZON!!
    [annoying ad guy #2:] annoying ad guy #1 you are totally the best! Wow that defiantly has *it*!
    [annoying ad guy #1:] >>false modesty mode>pointed gun finger gesture

  44. Peer-2-Peer Antispam? by Wikipedia · · Score: 0

    I was thinking about what if I could build a peer-to-peer antispam system which might solve the problem of spam once and for all. For example, using a Kademlia-based distributed-hash-table might work. Your client-side outlook or Thunderbird plugin would do a hashing of your complete email message after the headers, and/or hashes the attachments and/or the fields contained in the headers, then quickly, using the genius of Kademlia (which I really don't understand too well) possibly combined with a local bayesian filtering system, you are able to quickly find out if a message is: 1. spam 2. mailing list 3. not spam. To prevent spamming just leave out 3 & 2, so that any message that gets reported at all is going to be spam; why would a spammer report their own messages as spam?

    Of course they could try reporting known common email like mailing list messages, etc... that aren't spam as spam, but a local adaptive filter similar to gmail's spam filter, that adapts to each user would sort that out.

    A further protection against spammers spamming the system would be a way to trust a certain node, like everyone has an option to generate a guid that identifies you as unique. Then over time, you build up a trust percentile with other people who marked the same messages as spam, and the more closer they do, the more they trust your choices, and you trust them.

    This could even work for usenet, which is filled with so much spam that it makes it nearly unusable, especially since in the case of usenet generally everyone has the exact same message beyond the headers.

    So after this genius brainstorm I searched for 'kademlia spam' and find this guys page:
    SpamWatch - A Peer-to-peer Spam Filtering System
    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~zf/spamwatch/
    Also he wrote this interesting paper:
    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~zf/papers/ata_middlewa re.pdf

    Here's a similar project, but unrelated:
    http://www.mailavenger.org/

    Also other things could be implemented, like for example, quickly reporting email worms and the like.

    For more in-depth Kademlia information:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia

    --
    P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
  45. Whitelist-only email is the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my not-so-humble opinion, I feel that the only way to really save Internet email will be for everyone to adopt a whitelist-only solution. All inbound email to a recipient's mailbox gets filtered except from pre-approved senders. Any mail coming from a new sender who has not been approved prior, should get an automatic email sent back to them which contains a form to fill out in order to "subscribe" to becoming an authorized sender to that recipient. Put the usual "please type in the text you see in this melted plastic, ocr-proof photo to prove you are a human" security measure on the form to help weed out the bots.

    Such a system wouldn't be perfect but it sure would make a serious sized dent in the spam problem.

    1. Re:Whitelist-only email is the future by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Challenge/response systems generate as much spam as they block.

      If you are on a C/R system and you receive a spam, a challenge message is sent to the supposed sender. Spammers don't use their own email addresses but forge someone else. So for every spam your C/R system receives, it sends out a challenge email to some poor slob who just so happens to own the email address that is being abused today.

      So now instead of you receiving a single spam you didn't want, your system received that spam and generater yet another email that someone didn't want. You've effectively doubled the amount of spam!

      So, C/R is a piss-poor approach to spam control. On the infrequent occasion I send someone an email and get a C/R message back, I say "Screw it." I'm not going to solve their spam problem for them by jumping through additional hoops. They should just install a decent Bayesian filter and they can solve their spam problem without forcing *me* to go through hoops for them.

  46. Ugh! by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    SPAM filters are REAAAAAALLY annoying to me as a Sidekick user. The email servers are actually handed by Danger Inc, and I'm not sure exactly how it works but I think they're relayed through TMobile's servers or some other such weirdness so we can have a @tmail.com on our emails instead of @danger.com.

    Problem is several ISPs block all emails from these devices. "Relaying Prohibited" or something like that. The one I know for certain is Mindspring, but strangely Earthlink emails get through just fine. I guess it's the goal of SPAMMERS to be so twisty and hard to identify that eventually all sorts of legitimate email gets filtered by mistake, at that point they'll simply have to stop blocking it.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  47. Now This... and GoDaddy's new Web E-Mail Manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GoDaddy put up a new online e-mail manager (Starfieldtech) that screws everything up: JavaScript and AJAX and not-working in FireFox. Great jeorb, Homsash!

    With that and now an explanation for my Verizon e-mail fouling up, I'm SOL.

  48. Re:And netmail.verizon.net now seems to be IE-only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you are in fact mistaken. It works fine with Firefox 1.5.0.2.

  49. I'm SO happy... by mediis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...that I no longer work for the VZ mail team. And I can say, without a doubt that I'm VERY happy that I don't sit next to the Spam Cop... I know he reads /. and he would be VERY pissy for the next week or so. I may be burried in work, but at least I'm not burried in public ire.

  50. I edited your post for clarity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [snip]The worst [snip] is Comcast [snip].

    There, wasn't that simpler and just as accurate?

  51. Verio by VGR · · Score: 1

    Verio is doing it too. Not long ago, I sent e-mail to a friend about a dirty joke I'd heard. It got rejected by Verio's SMTP server. (Not bounced; Mozilla displayed a dialog indicating the server refused to send it, with the only the status "Denied" given as the reason.)

    I tried resending several times. I restarted Mozilla. I typed the password very carefully. It would not send.

    Then I took out the dirty words and left the rest of the message, and it went through on the first try.

    I'm not a child, and I don't appreciate being censored when I speak to other adults.

    If there were any parts of my e-mail in all-caps, or if I mentioned mortgage rates or penis growth or cheap Xanax, I might be sympathetic. But I did none of those things. I haven't sent anything to more than two or three recipients in years. This e-mail went to one recipient. And I seriously doubt my Linux system is a spam zombie.

    At least Verio's server notified me instead of black-holing my mail. This time.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go away.
  52. Re:Teenage Wildlife by Wikipedia · · Score: 0

    "Teenage Wildlife" is a song written by David Bowie in 1980 for the album Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps). Teenage wildlife forum was also the name of the main internet fan site before Bowie launced his Bowienet Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

    --
    P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
  53. The solution! by Skiron · · Score: 1

    All you need do is send the mail to:

    user@verizononline.net

    that bypasses the spam check, and user still gets the mail. The version users just need to adjust the 'reply to' address to this foramt for all mails to work.

    1. Re:The solution! by nagora · · Score: 1
      All you need do is send the mail to: user@verizononline.net

      Didn't work for me.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  54. Call the MAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg a call and ask him what he plans to do about it! WEST NYACK, NY 10994 (845) 353-3616

  55. You missed the essential step by lildogie · · Score: 1

    It has to be a Windows box connected directly to the DSL modem.

    That way, you end up generating real spam while you're trying to get your real mail through.

  56. Re:looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Veri by rmadmin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, this system from Verizon is junk. It blocks legitimate email constantly. We currently have 2 businesses in the same building. For some reason, Verizon is constantly blocking one of our business domains from the other business domain. And no amount of phone calls or emails or removal requests have done anything for us. We will shortly be moving to a new provider.

  57. Verizon by pmarcieb · · Score: 1

    Verizonwireless and verizon telco are actually 2 diferent things. They are also ran seperately. So wireless service has nothing to do with their DSL service. From experience at working tech support for verizon DSL. They do not want to fix problems, everyone there is clueless. There is really no purpose for them to have support except to make customers feel better when they sign up for the service. supervisors do not want to fix issues because they have no idea what to do. It would not do anyone any good to complain even to a supervisor there. It was the most un productive support job that I have ever had. Their goal there is to get you off of the phone as quickly as possible, regardless if your problem is fixed or not.

  58. It might help. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The whole "Do unto others" thing.

    If I was tech support staff, I'd like to be treated like I was able to pass it on that this might be a PR nightmare and have it influence what would be done.

    Also, seeing the way the tech support staff handles such a thing is useful, not to mention being able to handle being treated in such a manner is helpful. People who get hurt when being treated in such a manner are really only hurting themselves. I wouldn't be hurt in such a situation, and I'm tired of dealing with a society that thinks acting that way is wrong. It isn't lashing out at the tech support staff just because they're the easist people to reach really doesn't help anybody. It's more accurate to say that it's lashing out at them because their way of life results in them being useless cowards. Am I getting through to you?

  59. However by Drakin030 · · Score: 0

    180solutions still gets through >_>

  60. That's not what's being said at all. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    She's bad at her job because she doesn't understand the significance of what is being said. It's poor social skills, plain and simple.

  61. Yep, it was mentioned before... by antdude · · Score: 1

    See this old /. story. I noticed the list was moved to its own domain and renamed.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  62. Workaround: try SPF by gbnewby · · Score: 1

    One of my systems handles > 40K messages per day, and I can attest that Verizon email recently became a problem. I added an SPF record, and that instantly solved the problem. (I also filled out the online Verizon form, but haven't heard back yet). Summary: try SPF. http://www.openspf.org/wizard.html

  63. You don't understand by Jerim · · Score: 1

    I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand.

    You seem to think that just because you make a statement about VZ making a mistake, that the employee of VZ should back you up. You don't seem to understand the position the employee is in. The calls are more than likely monitored. If she says one thing that berates the company, she could lose her job. Therefore she can't say things like "I totally agree. This was a mistake on our part." Which is obviously what you wanted her to say, since you think she doesn't get it or that she was too clueless. How else was she suppossed to prove to you that she had a clue? Fix the problem? Is that what you really expected her to do? They have a team of engineers on the issue, but you expect the supervisor to magically fix it? She understood just fine. She is just powerless to do anything about it. What you mean to say is that she didn't come out and agree with you completely. You are the customer. You are allowed to say anything you want about the company. They don't care as long as you pay your bill. She is an employee. She is allowed to say only what has been pre-approved. She may be 10 times smarter than anyone on this board. But she is tied by management to only a few select phrases that she can say.

    I am sure management has a script that she follows. She is only allowed to say certain things regarding the problem. Bashing the company isn't on the list. She is forced to say thins like "We are committed to bringing you a better email experience. Whatever minor problems there are, we will have fixed in momentarily." She can't voice her anger at having told managment 20 times that this would be a problem, only to have management move forward on it anyway and tell her it is her job to handle the calls so that is what she will do. Quit expecting her to say "Hold on, let me go tell my boss that I agree with the customer that we made a mistake." It is arrogant and naive to expect an employee of that company to bash that company. Give her credit for seeing this coming a mile away, but being powerless to stop it.

  64. Not that simple. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sorry, but the guy you replied to is doing nothing wrong and is going out of his way to make sure his server plays nice?
    It isn't about doing something "wrong".

    It's the fact that there is nothing to distinguish his email server from any of the hundreds (thousands?) of zombies on that same network.

    In cases such as this, the best solution is for the home user to over-comply. And that means learning about relaying and getting a relay account on a server that does not look like a zombie.
    And you accuse him (or her) of being an idiot and tell him it's all his fault anyway?
    This is not about anyone being an idiot.

    This is about making it as easy as possible for the other competent email admins to see that you are not a zombie.

    The more concessions you expect from all of them, the more problems you'll face.
    1. Re:Not that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree you can't expect to run an MTA from a dynamic residential netblock but how do you know he doesn't have a static IP with properly configured SPF records and matching forward/reverse DNS? There's nothing wrong with running your own MTA and the simple solution is for ISP's to egress filter port 25 by default (unless the customer requests otherwise).

    2. Re:Not that simple. by (negative+video) · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The more concessions you expect from all of them, the more problems you'll face.
      The complaint here was that certain ISPs are saying "Thank you, esteemed peer, for sending this valuable message which we will now deliver." when what they really mean is "Bugger off, spammy scum. Your message? Ha! We spit in the general direction of your message, which we will delete as soon as we finish wiping our ass with it." The behavior is singularly unhelpful.
    3. Re:Not that simple. by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Except you can not reasonably identify a single customer's IP to make exceptions in your egress filtering. The only reasonable way to do it is to allow all statically assigned customers to run SMTP servers.

    4. Re:Not that simple. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with allowing the mail through if the SPF record is valid? Not all PCs on dynamic netblocks are zombies. However, some basic checks are only sensible...

    5. Re:Not that simple. by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      SPF1 checks are for either adding to the block score as a probable spoof/forgery if the record ends with ~all (softfail) or else for dropping during the SMTP conversation with appropriate protocol error if the record ends with the -all (hardfail) mechanism. Conservative estimates of spammy domains with valid SPF1 records are at least 15%. I personally would never accept based solely on SFP1 pass, but I would do so if the message purported to be from one of the domains in a personal list of known-goods (non-spammy domains).

    6. Re:Not that simple. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      However, SPF would give you the ability to blacklist/whitelist domains instead of IPs - domains change less often. You could whitelist yahoo.com and not have to update the database every time yahoo adds a server to their cluster.

      Somebody like spamhous could run a DNS-based database that determines whether a domain is spammy, non-spammy, or unknown based on complaint data (much as they currently do for IPs now).

      Individuals could obviously make up their own minds regarding unknown domains, but if a domain has a reputation for not sending spam, why block it just because they don't own a T1?

    7. Re:Not that simple. by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      However, SPF would give you the ability to blacklist/whitelist domains instead of IPs - domains change less often. You could whitelist yahoo.com and not have to update the database every time yahoo adds a server to their cluster.

      I don't follow; can SPF really whitelist domains? Isn't the point of the record that domain names can't be trusted to be not spoofed/forged? I know SFP1 has several mechanisms such as the MX and A records, but I'm pretty sure those are resolved to their IP address so the SPF-checking application is comparing apples to apples, no?

      http://openspf.org/mechanisms.html

      Somebody like spamhous could run a DNS-based database that determines whether a domain is spammy, non-spammy, or unknown based on complaint data (much as they currently do for IPs now).

      Such as IronPort's SenderBase.com Also, for domains contained within the message body, there are SURBL.org and URIBL.com

      Individuals could obviously make up their own minds regarding unknown domains, but if a domain has a reputation for not sending spam, why block it just because they don't own a T1?

      Yeah, I wouldn't block merely if the IP is dynamic, but I would consider scoring it spammy as long as that score alone doesn't reach the spam block or spam redirect thresholds.

    8. Re:Not that simple. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the scoring bit - I score dynamic IPs myself, but the key is that it is only one component of the filter.

      SPF tells you what servers are allowed to send mail for the domain - so if you get mail from yahoo.com, and none of the SPF servers resolve to that IP, then you can safely trash it.

      In my domain's SPF I use a and mx records - so if somebody gets a connection from some computer claiming to have mail from me, and its IP is not listed in my domain's A or MX records, then it should get bounced.

      So, this essentially prevents domain spoofing. SPF has no real point if you just leave the settings wide open (ie setting any to pass).

    9. Re:Not that simple. by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      So by "blacklist/whitelist domains instead of IPs" you mean via a or mx record mechanisms for/of the domain which the SPF1 record is published, and not some foreign domain such as Yahoo.com, unless you were refering to Yahoo's SPF record, which BTW, they don't have :(

      And hopefully more SPF1 records will end with -all
      For some lame reason, the SPF Wizard generates records ending with ~all with no explanation.

    10. Re:Not that simple. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I think we're on the same page.

      I would blacklist/whitelist by domain. Then when somebody wants to give me mail I would make sure they are allowed to send mail for that domain. If not I'd very negatively score, if so I'd base the score on the domain.

      The idea of SPF is that it lets you safely associate IPs with domains, and greatly reduces the amount of whack-a-mole with your filters.

      You could also negatively score domains that are new, or which appear to be owned by spammers based on WHOIS. Basically, it opens a whole new arena of checking.

  65. WideOpenWest destroys modem when mail forwarded by wren337 · · Score: 1

    I got hosed last week forwarding a phishing email. I got a fake chase bank email - I've been getting them a lot lately - and I forwarded it to abuse@chase.com, like I always do. The next link I click gets hijacked and I'm looking at a WoW page that says my network has been disabled because I have a virus that's sending out phishing emails.

    45 minutes later I finally convince the guy that I'm pretty sure my ubuntu box is not infected. Apparently they locked out my connection by dropping a new bin file onto my cable modem that locks out mail service - "noemail.bin". So then we spend 20 minutes trying to get the bin file updated on my cable modem, which is apparently now not accepting updates. The guy asks sheepishly "Any chance you have another cable modem lying around?" Which, strangely, I do, so we get service back up on that modem.

    And I say "you really shouldn't cripple people's hardware when they forward phishing emails", and he says, "why don't you try forwarding it again, I really can't believe that was it".

    Unfortunately I was all out of cable modems, so I declined.

    Not only could the guy not tell me about the rule that tripped the block, he couldn't get anyone to even talk to him about it. His upstream guy told him "just say it's a virus" and hung up on him. And he had no mechanism to open a trouble ticket either, although he told me he'd mention it to his supervisor.

  66. This isn't new by bizzynut · · Score: 1

    They've been doing this for at least a year. At my previous job (a school), we were put on VZ's blacklist apparently at the request of the recipient of one of our mailing lists. After a week of calling as the network admin of the domain in question (and getting nowhere), I called as a home DSL customer and told them I was missing important information thanks to their policy. They took the domain off of the blacklist immediately.

  67. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by jopasm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow. A complete and total geek response. A totally useless geek response. It's very very obvious that's you've never dealt with large numbers of "ordinary" users. RSS means they have to a) install new software b) configure new software c) remember to launch the new software and check for new messages.

    It's not a solution, it's just a new problem.

    --

    ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.

  68. RSS Feed by kindbud · · Score: 1

    Is there any way to get the RSS feed for Slashdot to honor your settings for which numbnut editor you don't want to see articles from? I keep getting ambushed by ScuttleMonkey's asshattery when I follow links from the RSS feed.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
    1. Re:RSS Feed by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      I believe that's a subscriber-only option.

  69. Re:looks good: wish AT&T would learn from Veri by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, no, the system from Verizon (VOL) is not a step in the right direction.

    Imagine the impact to email in general if EVERY ISP and company use such a bonehead system. Everytime you sent email to a new person (customer / client,) you would have to *find*, then fill out some bizzaro web form. MAYBE in a week or so you will finally be able to send your email. Exactly how does this help things???

    VOL's problem is that the group running their email service is a bunch of totally incompetant BOFH a-holes. Instead of deploying well known and effective anti-spam solutions, they are just blacklisting up a storm, and utilizing broken home-grown "sender verification" systems. Meanwhile, the spew of filth from VOL's own network continues to infest the rest of the internet unabated.

    VOL's problem with unreliable email service is VERY VERY well known to its customers - check the internal Verizon newsgroups. VOL's customers continue to complain constantly, as they have for nearly 2 years now, about missing or delayed email - but nobody at VOL is listening (or cares.)

  70. It's called a spam folder by NotoriousHood · · Score: 1
    I don't understand why aside from some basic proper server configuration checks (reverse lookup, etc) why users can't manage their spam (like ThunderBird, Yahoo mail, etc) and not have any message blocked. I love scanning my spam folder and finding messages that were incorrectly flagged. I understand that some users aren't up to the task, but at least make it an option (with the default being to have restrictive filtering if that's a priority for the ISP).

    I've also had trouble sending mail to AOL, both through an ISP and through standalone servers. I'm glad I'm not in a Comcast area.

  71. Re:Discussion at google? by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

    We're sorry... ... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.

    We'll restore your access as quickly as possible, so try again soon. In the meantime, if you suspect that your computer or network has been infected, you might want to run a virus checker or spyware remover to make sure that your systems are free of viruses and other spurious software.

    We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope we'll see you again on Google.

  72. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. If people are ACTUALLY interested in getting random stuff from some online list, they'll have to figure out how to use an RSS client. Instead, they just call it spam, 'cause they didn't want it in the first place, and then ask their ISP like, say, Verizon, to help them get rid of all this spam that they didn't want.

    It's "a new problem" because it requires people to actually have to WANT the crap they're being sent and go out of their way to opt-in. If people actually want that stuff, they can figure out an RSS feed. Since most people don't, you're right, most people probably won't bother. Sounds like a perfect solution to me.

  73. This makes round three for me with Verizon by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    Last year my smtp server was arbitrarily blocked by Verizon at about the same time it blocked all of Europe. I dutifully filled in the whitelist form, waited a week or so, and was apparently added to the whitelist, or removed from the blacklist.

    Everything was fine until a month or two ago when one of my college classmates said he wasn't receiving any of the listserver messages I handle for the class. Sure enough, he was on Verizon, so I once again dutifully filled in the whitelist form, etc., and was cleared in a couple of days.

    Last night one of my clients was unable to reach a Verizon customer and forwarded to me the SMTP error reply that was posted in this article. So, once again, I have filled out the form and am waiting breathlessly for their response.

    Now I'm not opposed to blacklisting IP's or IP address blocks; I do so myself. But my blocks are of the form "don't take mail allegedly From someone@aol.com unless it originates on a server in *.aol.com". I do block whole swaths of IP space that belong to clueless cable, DSL, or dialup providers like terra.com.br or tiscali.fr. But I'm also very careful to limit those blocks to subdomains that are clearly customer-premises lines. I worked hard over the years to customize the block list very carefully to avoid false positives. The result is to block about 40% of incoming messages at the smtp level.

    That being said, there's no reason Verizon should be blocking my server. I'm connected over a ATT-provided business T1; I'm not on any anti-spam blacklist (see http://www.robtex.com/ for a nice one-stop RBL check); I maintain SPF records for all my domains. Yet they have arbitrarily blocked my server on three separate occasions.

    My fear is that they respond to customer complaints and blacklist servers because someone received a message with a forged From address. One or another of the domains I host gets forged from time to time. This happened recently to one of my customers. Perhaps a Verizon customer got one of these forged messages, complained to Verizon, and they put my server on the block list (despite the SPF record I maintain for the domain that was forged).

    Unfortunately Verizon seems to treat its anti-spam practices as some sort of trade secret. Despite the furor over blocking mail from Europe last year and the class action suit that ensued, they still provide no information about the criteria they use to block senders. And, of course, there's absolutely no information about how to contact a human being to fix any of these problems. In fact, unless Verizon's web site has been changed, there's no way to find the whitelisting form either. You have to know the secret URL or use a Google search to bring up the form.

    It's especially unfortunate since I live in Massachusetts, which is Verizon country, so a number of my clients have correspondents with Verizon addresses.

  74. I support you. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I'm standing with you against those who spread FUD that such behavior isn't helping anyone.

  75. Doesn't affect Phone SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for agressive filtering. For the first time in 2 years I got a Text Message SPAM to my Verizon Wireless phone this morning. At around the same time, my wife got a completely different one also. She will get one occasionally, but the timing is just to odd.

  76. I have the prob too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sent emails to a friend yesterday using private email hosted on a webserver/email account hosted by 1and1.com. Some went through, many did not. I'd say 2 out of 10 did not get through with testing. I then sent via a backup Earthlink account I retain and it works fine.

  77. Nah, It's the bundlers that are costing money. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I just wish they'd stop. What you did was a legitimate way to fight back given the current societal climate.

  78. I encountered this yesterday by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    I sent a reply to an email a friend of mine sent me (he is a Verizon customer). I got the same message quoted in this story. I've been corresponding with this friend (him using the same Verizon account, and me the same non-Verizon account) for months.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  79. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by radish · · Score: 1

    Oh please - obselete? That's BS. Most of the people I interact with on a daily basis only just grasp email - none of them would have any clue what RSS even was. Hell, I've written RSS clients and even I don't actually use RSS - I just don't find it useful. Plus, it's utterly useless if you're sending out customized content - you'd need a seperate feed URL/params for each user and so you'd also need auth - something which RSS is basically hopeless at.

    People (normal people, not people like you) actually LIKE email, when it's appropriate and they asked for it. I LIKE getting emails once a week about concerts I might want to go to, and special offers from the stores I frequently buy from, and automated updates on order status. That's not spam, it's useful information being provided to me because I asked for it. Any "solution" to spam which reduces the usefulness of email as a whole is not a solution.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  80. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by cloak42 · · Score: 1

    The big problem with RSS is that NOBODY USES IT.

    That is to say, NORMAL people don't use it. Only geeks do. The average user would MUCH rather sign up to receive email updates to something (say, a website updating) than to subscribe to an RSS feed. It's just not intuitive for them.

    So until you can get the general public to adopt RSS, mailing lists are going to continue to need to exist.

  81. No! No! No! Re:Stop the presses! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    You have to contact their customers, thair affiliate partners.

    Oh and contact more than one news outlet as well as industry-related papers.

  82. How is this new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon has been blocking emails from nearly all of Asia and Europe for ages, and got their pants sued off by their customers.

    1. Re:How is this new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  83. Just a thought. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may not seem like the best of ideas, but why not use something outside of ISP provided email. I don't know about other people, but with me, I have a work email account, an email account from GMail, and two that I set up when I bought hosting for my site. That seems like plenty of email addresses to me.

    Much as I understand the convience of having an account with your ISP (do everything on one site) but ultimately, I find that an ISP does not make for good email hosting. Comcast, for one, is pretty terrible.

    For most things, it helps to go with the service specificalyl designed for that specific need. Yeah, Verison is doing a poor job, but Verison also specializes in phone services, not in being a good email host.

  84. Re:And netmail.verizon.net now seems to be IE-only by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    I no longer seem to be able to access their web-based email with Firefox for Windows 1.0.

    Now that's cross platform!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  85. Re:Verizon? PR problem? You don't say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, keep in mind that when Verizon acquired MCI, they acquired UUNet, a tier-1 ISP with some serious spam problems of their own [infoworld.com].

    Welcome to December, 2000. Have you heard about this newfangled WWW site called Google? I wonder if I should invest in it? Nah, it's all a big pyramid scheme...

  86. Get a real ISP by rs79 · · Score: 1

    About 3 years ago Verizon began rejecting about half the mail from a mailing list I run to it's subscribers there. Normail mail got through 100% of the time but stuff from a mailing list about a certain type of old German cars got nukked.

    For two years 3 grey haired polite chaps used to dealing with local governments (successfully) tried to find out WTF and how to fix it.

    After two years Verizon told us all to use a different ISP if they expected reliable email.

    Apparantly is IS rocket science.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  87. Verizon filtering email even to abuse/postmaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon is even filtering the mail to abuse@ and postmaster@verizon.net. I found this yesterday when I tried to report a spam coming from a zombie on their network.

  88. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by clary · · Score: 1

    True, but yuck.

    If it is my work email, then I don't want to hear from you unless you are part of my job.

    If it is my home email, then I want to hear from you if you are friend or family. I will tolerate hearing from you if we have a bona fide preexisting business relationship and your email is not marketing. (Statements are OK...trying to sell me new stuff is spam.)

    If I want more I'll visit your web site.

    --

    "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

  89. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by dereference · · Score: 1
    If people actually want that stuff, they can figure out an RSS feed.

    I can't figure out whether you're a troll or just clueless about customer support. On the off-chance it's the latter, let me try to explain that you are greatly over-estimating the ability of most humans to "figure out" how to install and use an RSS feed, and you are greatly under-estimating the number of humans who call to ask to be added to email-based mailing lists.

    Sounds like a perfect solution to me.

    Indeed, your idea works well for you, and everybody else who happens to be just like you. Unfortunately, this little group is highly non-representative of the vast majority of retail consumers on this planet.

  90. Signed, the world's mail administrators by Chiny · · Score: 1

    Well, perhaps not over just yet.

    I run a mail system on an IP listed as dynamic (actually it rarely changes). It has proved excellent over the last few years in reducing spam from a torrent to the very occasional drip.

    For sending mail, my default is via a commercial service but 95% of my email sent is to a select few, all of who use ISPs that do not dump DynIPs.

    Reports of the death of the home server are greatly exaggerated.

    1. Re:Signed, the world's mail administrators by Skapare · · Score: 1

      The number of networks that are blocking dynamic IPs and generic IPs is growing. It is your responsibility as the sender to make sure your email is fully distinguishable from spam (while the spammers are trying very hard to make their junk look like legitimate mail). If your recipient whitelists your email address, that should work. I run my own mail servers - I block all dynamic/generic address (by their names, not IPs) - I whitelist email addresses (not names unless you are the domain owner). It works well for keeping the spam out.

      Now I need to find a way to punish those evil ISPs that let the spammers stay connected to keep using up my bandwidth server process time. I know, I'll block the whole ISP and make all their customers move ... except those that are whitelisted.

      It isn't going to be that long until networks start blocking the entire 0.0.0.0/0 space and require whitelisting to get through. If you don't want it to get to that, then join the fight to get all spammers disconnected.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  91. Re:Verizon filtering email even to abuse/postmaste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  92. Where is that happening? by khasim · · Score: 1
    The complaint here was that certain ISPs are saying "Thank you, esteemed peer, for sending this valuable message which we will now deliver." when what they really mean is "Bugger off, spammy scum. Your message? Ha! We spit in the general direction of your message, which we will delete as soon as we finish wiping our ass with it."
    I'm not seeing that in either the original post in this thread or the original story.

    In both cases, it seems that the receiving servers are refusing to receive the message at SMTP time.

    They do not seem to be accepting the messages and then deleting them.

    In my opinion, while it is stupid of Verizon to reject email from Google, they are following the best practice of rejecting the messages at SMTP time so that the gmail user will get a notice saying that their message was rejected.
    1. Re:Where is that happening? by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
      I'm not seeing that in either the original post in this thread or the original story. ... In both cases, it seems that the receiving servers are refusing to receive the message at SMTP time.
      This comment says "I'm never sure if an email that I sent out has actually gotten through, or if it's just been silently eaten by some spam filter somewhere."
  93. Pesky Supervisors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Error "550" has a couple of causes. The cause that you're experiencing is what is called a "whitelisting issue". Unfortunately, Tech Support has nothing to do with this process. Its entirely managed by the Verizon Anti-spam team. You can access and fill out a form at www.verizon.net/whitelist.

    I've spent a fair amount of time tracking down the error that you're looking at. Its primarily caused by 2 things. Your server sends Verizon spam or its misconfigured.

    1. Your server is a known open relay or has otherwise been responsible for sending spam to the Verizon network.

    2. Your server is misconfigured. An improperly configured webserver will cause this problem every time. VOL, when receiving an email from a web server, attempts to check the validity and credentials of the sender on the originating SMTP server. If your server fails to respond with an appropriate timeframe or responds incorrectly, your server will be immediately placed on the "black list"

    I'd like to note that Verizon has had this (exact same) anti-spam procedure in place for almost a year and a half. I'm still going to say this is "much ado about nothing".

    Unfortunately, I probably shouldn't attach my name to this one. I'll post this AC and see if anyone cares to mod up the reason why you're receiving this error.

    AC

  94. Stupid Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run a web forum for someone, and one of the users has an email address @verizon.net. For some weeks now his email has been getting "Deferred, please try later", and eventually timing out after several retries, now it's just bouncing back saying they're not accepting it at all.

    I don't run an open relay, this is all legitimate mail.

    Having worked in an ISP and dealt with mailservers containing millions of user mailboxes, this seems like a thoroughly stupid policy. Talk about making work for yourself...

    Blocking user's incoming mail by default? Cmon...

  95. AHH HA! by matth · · Score: 1

    I thought we had sent out spam.. this explains the problem. Seriously, I got a bunch of these bounces from users this morning, and couldn't figure it out.. nothing looked odd in the mailserver logs.

  96. Re:Teenage Wildlife by Wikipedia · · Score: 0

    Did you know your site is mentioned on wikipedia? And that your ip address is probably 204.52.215.117? That you edit wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special: Contributions&target=204.52.215.117 You sometimes use: Shareaza 2.1.0.0 You (or your wife) visits: www.womenfitness.net

    --
    P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
  97. Verizon are clueless. by Homestar+Breadmaker · · Score: 2

    You can't check the validity of the from address of mail. They blacklist people who's mail servers return tempfails for fuck's sake.

  98. Catch-22 on Verizon's Whitelist page by swhalen · · Score: 1

    Verizon has the following at the bottom of the referenced whitelist page:

      "*Verizon Online reserves the right to restrict access to or from any domain provided at its sole discretion. The information provided to Verizon Online must be wholly correct or the request may be rejected. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to provide a solution that enables you to send or receive e-mail from a restricted source."

    What the hell!!!

    I thought in order to protect ISP's "not responsible for content" legal stance, they had to be a utility pipe. Sound like they're in the business of value judgements as to which domains they accept email from....

    Anybody have any idea how to get Verizon to just put anybody on our manually maintained whitelist we want? Why should Verizon get a say?

  99. A discussion at "Google?" by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Jesus, even /. doesn't know what Usenet is anymore???

    Slashdot, News for AOLers, Stuff that's clueless.

    1. Re:A discussion at "Google?" by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Jesus, even /. doesn't know what Usenet is anymore???

      Slashdot, News for AOLers, Stuff that's clueless.


      This was a gmail-specific tech-support group. Not usenet.

      Boy, you really showed those noobs what's what.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:A discussion at "Google?" by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Touchè. I think I hurt my knee jerking it that hard.

      Oversenstized to google-groups users calling usenet a "list", "website" and "Google," I guess.

  100. Quit being dumb. by Homestar+Breadmaker · · Score: 1

    "Why should any MTA operator have to endure constant connection attempts from the zombied PC's of the tards these companies call customers?"

    Just use greylisting.

  101. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ah yes, because everyone has RSS clients, they're pretty much ubiquitous, but email is so obsolete man, it's hard to find anyone with that.

    (The GP might be better off by persuading his subscribers to have their ISPs unblock their messages rather than trying to do the same thing themselves, rather than picking the latest blogging technologies)

  102. With such a warm regard for its customers, by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    Verizon is surely going to behave as a benign force once it has secured legal rights to double bill for bandwidth. Anybody want to help me set up a cellular decentralized shadow to the internet? I won't filter your e-mail if you won't filter mine.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  103. Cluelessness. by saintlupus · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that whoever a customer can actually reach on the phone is probably a call center contractor, not an actual Verizon employee. Speaking as someone who was in that position (until Verizon shut down the center I worked in and fired everyone), the amount of communication coming down from on high is close to nil.

    (And, for added fun, the non-union call centers are not allowed to call the union employees of Verizon proper. Good luck getting your stuff fixed when the phone monkeys are barred from speaking to the people who can fix it!)

    --saint

  104. NOT much ado about nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been blocking all mail from RCN (a medium-sized ISP which currently has ~409,000 customers)!

  105. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
    Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense for "why we should allow spam". Because mailing lists might get blocked. Well, mailing lists are obsolete now. They've been replaced by RSS.
    You are a complete and total idiot, sir. Or have you forgotten that there are other types of mailing list, like -devel lists and discussion lists, where messages *don't* all come from the same sender? Do you not realize that RSS is *not* techinically superior, just newer and different (polling vs. interrupts (WRT "email clients poll the server anyway", that's polling an aggregator, and less inefficient that polling 10 seperate places with 1/10th the messages each.))? Do you not understand "ease of use" or "user-friendly"? Are you aware of the world of people beyond your mother's basement?

    ( Also, I think email clients should be able to tell the server "I'm online now", and get emails relayed upon arrival until the server fails to connect (or the client announces that it's going offline). Then it can go back to storing messages until the client comes back online. Unfortunately, any ISPs with "pay us extra if you want to run a server" firewalls would make this not work so well. )

  106. Bass-Ackwards by JusticeISaid · · Score: 1

    ISPs should concentrate on trying to interdict outbound spam rather than imposing filters on inbound messages without the customer's consent. Try explaining to your 91-year-old father -- as I had to do this morning -- that some of his messages are bouncing because they happen to be transmitted through one of AOL's SMTP relays that has been blocklisted by Verizon while others are getting through because they happen to be routed through a different relay. (He sort of understood, and decided the remedy is simply to send everything twice. In other words, now he is spamming me.)

  107. Re:Ah, yes, the "mailing list" defense by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
    "Wow. A complete and total geek response. A totally useless geek response."

    How is forgetting the existence of -devel lists geeky?

  108. Maybe your school mail server really is ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    Maybe your school mail server really is misconfigured. The fact that most mail servers let through mail from a misconfigured server is probably related to the fact that the vast majority of mail servers are either misconfigured or otherwise mismanaged, including at educational institutions which you'd think would know better.

    If the school mail server has no reverse DNS, or invalid reverse DNS, or mismatching reverse DNS, then it isn't going to be deliverable to a growing number of other mail servers (including mine). Just because the majority still accept mail (and spam) from misconfigured servers does not justify expecting everyone to do so.

    If the school mail server is an open relay, that's even worse. Not only will an even larger number of networks refuse everything from it, many will refuse everything for a long time after it is fixed (since everyone will have to be notified of the fix).

    Tell us what the IP address of the school mail server is. Also tell us the hostname. We can check for obvious problems. If any are found, then get them fixed, even if you have to put a cluestick wound on the mail server admin. There's really no excuse for not doing it right (should do it right the first time).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  109. blocked sender email on dynamic IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Recently -- like within the last six months or so, I've noticed an alarming number of domains that aren't receiving my emails. And no, I haven't been blackholed or otherwise put on anyone's shit list, nor am I running an open relay. The mailserver is perfectly well-behaved, standards compliant, and only relays from within my home LAN.

    Doesn't matter -- dynamic IP addresses are impossible to individually blacklist. You can blacklist static IP offenders, but with dynamic I am sorry to report that the whole "basket" is rotten -- ALL dynamic IPs must be blocked to preserve the system for others.

    You need to use a commercial SMTP relay service, like TZO Outbound Mail Relay, which will get you around the IP block (and will also fix your reverse MX issues). You have to relay out email through a real static IP -- it's too much spam bandwidth to rely on content filtering alone.

  110. Class Action Suit by LeGrandFou · · Score: 1

    Sorry if this is a dup.

    There is a class action suit against Verizon for blocking legit emails. You could get $10 or so, I suspect.

    Its ironic that Verizon has been allowed to send notification of this suit via email only. I wonder how many notices have gotten blocked?

  111. Cash Cow? [was: Re:There seems to be some mixup..] by Maow · · Score: 1
    As a Verizon DSL custmoer,

    There's your problem right there.

    You're their ca$h cow.

  112. This is News? by artgeeq · · Score: 1

    As an e-mail admin, I have had the same problem many months ago with Comcast. I made phone calls and got nowhere.

    But, more intrestingly, is Verizon's idea of cost effectiveness. Block lists are really a poor man's spam filter. A good spam filter will use block lists as only a single factor, one among many. But, to implement a weighted spam filtering system costs $money$.

    A while back, I tried an experiment. I captured much of the spam being received (thanks to SpamAssassin), parsed out the sender's IP addressses and created a block list this way. If an IP sent us more than, say, 100 spam messages, then I put them on the list. I did not work out so well. Not a whole lot of spam was blocked, and a few good messages were blocked as well.

    1. Re:This is News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Verizon had this very thing going for more than a year now. Hardly news.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/verizon_cl ass_action/print.html

      Which was replaced later with this:

      The original message was received at Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:10:41 +0300
      from [192.168.0.253]

            ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

              (reason: 550 You are not permitted to send mail. Please visit
        http://www.verizon.net/whitelist to request removal.)

            ----- Transcript of session follows ----- .... while talking to relay.verizon.net.:
      >>> MAIL From: SIZE=5144 BODY=7BIT
      http://www.verizon.net/whitelist to request removal.
      554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

      And later they got this:

      http://www.emailblockingsettlement.com/

  113. its probably just spyware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how do you know that there is a new spam filter?
    why is it that since you have problems, and not everyone else, its not your fault.

    In the google group, the sixt and last poster says he doesnt have any problems, if anyone can go through this list of comments and count how many people have problems, because it is after all, that important, this could help to get an idea of what the problem really is.

    i bet not half the people posting have the same problem, end even less under the same conditions.

    my uninformed hunch: spyware on your PC

  114. Verizon aggressive new spam filter causing problem by denzi · · Score: 1

    In my opinion Verizon must be going against Constitution rights by filtering spam this way. I give no one permission to decide what emails reach my personal email account, least of all in my opinion a big confused company like Verizon. I pay for Symantec Norton protection which filters Spam according to my specifications and judgement. Interesting subject.

  115. Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    well how about you get rich and get yourself a personal assistant with huge titts that'll sift through all your emails and make you coffee too so you don't have to whine about it anymore

    Why didn't I think of that before?!??! You, sir, deserve a raise.

  116. RR Blocked my registrar by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    About a month or two ago Road Runner decided to do a block on all mail originating from the servers of my registrar. www.DirectNIC.com one of the larger ones out there.

    Unfortunately all of my e-mail, and all the e-mails for all of the business partners I have are routed through their respecitve domains with DirectNIC as the mail fwd.

    I did their whitelist process but they could not do anything manually. It took 24-48 hours. The registrar didn't even have a way to contact these asshats.

    The dipshits in tech support had NO WAY to get ahold of the network engineers to let them know they had created a major mistake. It was pathetic.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  117. problems by clackerd · · Score: 1

    it is ridiculous you need to request a provider take you off their email blacklist. it seems to me they need to bend over backward if they inconvenience their customers to this extent. you know, i would bitch for a free month of service.

    fantastic use of "problem" too. it drives the point home.

    "I warned her that VZ has a public relations problem but she was too clueless to understand." Many users have submitted this problem so it seems to be a pretty far reaching problem. There is also a discussion going on over at Google about this problem."

  118. If you hate Verizon so much... by lorcha · · Score: 1
    ... why are you using their email service?

    You might be happier with a different email service. That way, if you ever want to bolt from Verizon, you don't have to mess around with changing your email address.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  119. I only will deal with a human by lorcha · · Score: 1

    These days, there's nothing an IVR can tell me that the company's website can't tell me. If I'm calling customer service, it's because I can't do what I need to do using any automated system (the website, or the IVR) and I need to speak with a real, live, human being. Preferrably, one who speaks passable English.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  120. Getting in touch with Verizon by maggard · · Score: 1
    1. Contact whatever local government entity it is that might handle problems like this. You might be surprised to discover that sometimes even small towns have an ombudsman or such for this.
    2. Contact your local Better Business Bureau. Verizon will notice when they show up in the Top-10-Complaints-For-Our-Area news stories on slow days.
    3. Contact your State Public Utilities Commission (or equivalent). Verizon is a monopoly, enjoys all sorts of privileges, make them treat their customers with some respect.
    4. Contact your State Department of Consumer Affairs (or equivalent). Verizon is selling you are service which they are no longer delivering, get some state employee with a direct number to Verizon's complaints office on the case.
    5. Kick 'em to the curb. Who do you hate less? Your phone company, your cable company, or some other sort of ISP? Grit your teeth and see if the grass really is greener on the other side.
    6. Get your own domain with your own mail servers and your own filters and not be dependent on any unresponsive monopoly. No more lock-in to them, no more stealth filtering, no inane challenge/response systems, unless you activate them.
    7. And finally, start calling "real people" at Verizon. Put your detective skills to work and post the direct numbers for the these folks. Trust me, they'll toast the ass of whomever has made this mess when their collective secretaries start fielding calls about it!
    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  121. Gmail by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    use GMail instead.

    I can't think of a reason to use Verizon e-mail with all the problems they've had. You can also get pretty good e-mail with a $5/mo shell account if you want something with more control.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  122. Yes, they've been aggressively evil before by billstewart · · Score: 1
    A while back they blocked email from most of Europe, because they were getting too much spam from Europe, and they didn't give their users a way around it, even if they _wanted_ mail from there.

    By contrast, one of the ISPs where I get email also uses country-based blacklists, but lets the user pick which countries. So I block all email from China, Korea, and Nigeria, but I know some people in Japan and Israel so that mail from there only gets extra-heavy filtering instead of total blockage.

    In general, the old model that said that an ISP provided Internet access and also an email account and some web hosting isn't really current. Sure, most ISPs do provide email accounts, and probably use them for administrative email, but there are lots of good places to get email, whether webmail or POP/IMAP-mail or whatever, and it's often not worth using your ISP's email service even if it's included for free - shop around for an email provider you like.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  123. Unusable Error Messages from ISPs by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Too many mailbox-serving-ISPs have messages like this, that say "I don't like something about your email server but I won't tell you specifically what it is. Maybe it's A, B, or C.". Sure, things A, B, and C might be Bad, but that doesn't mean that any individual one is their real objection, (especially if you're not doing any of those) so there's nothing that you as an email sender or the Email server provider or ISP that the user is using that lets you fix it. Instead, all you get to do is call the destination ISP's Tech Support Line, who tell you that something must have been wrong with your configuration, and that A, B, and C are common Bad Things that they block. And their supervisor can't tell you anything useful either, if you succeed in getting him/her.

    By contrast, a message that says "You're on Blacklist X, so go away or get off the list at http://www.example.net/spammer-apologies!" is at least semi-useful, if the blacklist actually responds to questions (some do, some don't.) I usually see 451 messages from Greylisting, so just because you got blocked the first time doesn't mean your mail won't be accepted 30 minutes later.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Unusable Error Messages from ISPs by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just don't know what the cause of the problem is. If two pieces of data don't match, who can say which is the wrong piece. If a DNS lookup fails, details are not typically transferred to the mail server. And most mail servers only provide a simple static message insertion for a whole class of failures that could be causes for not accepting the email.

      A competent and experienced mail server administrator can figure out the issue and fix it. There's a common set of configurations that all need to be right, and these can all be checked. If all that is correct, then the blacklists are the next likely cause. There are places to enter an address to see if it is listed anywhere.

      Still, many mail servers do detail the blacklist identity when it's a blacklist issue. I know Postfix does. Of course it's a matter of what they are running at the destination, and they could be running something stupid that won't say. If you find you are sending email to someone whose ISP is stupid, ask them to get a better ISP (yeah, yeah, I know, most people won't ... but tell them, anyway).

      As for blacklists answering questions, why should they? If they publish criteria for being listed, then either get the situation changed, or show that the situation doesn't fit the criteria. All the major blacklists can do this w/o any need to answer any questions.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  124. Sounds like most company's "tech" supports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first year at college, 1994 at Drexel, they had our entire year buy Power Mac 6100/7100/8100's running MacOS 7.5. (Yeah, today, they are the least supported Mac models, even less so than older 68K models-- not the point.)

    There was a single building for tech support. It quickly became known that there were only a few "tech"'s and only one was a real tech. Getting a problem solved was a roulette game-- if you got the real tech, it was solved-- if you got the others, it was hit or usually miss. The kicker was the others always, always, always reinstalled the OS over top of the existing one... even when there was absolutely no reason to do so.

    Case and point: my friend had some computer problems where the computer would randomly freeze, usually during Excel. Another friend cracked the case and noticed one of the SIMM's was not fully seated. My first friend, nervous about letting just anyone touch the computer's innards, took her computer to tech support. She stated to them, the memory is not proper seated, please fix it, but do not reinstall the system, the system is fine. Well, when it came back a few days later... the SIMM had not been touched, and the OS was reinstalled. :(

    It disturbs me that when a non-techie is working in a tech support position, many cannot even perform non-technical tasks, such as the aforementioned "please do this" or worse "please don't do that". If you really want to get me started, just ask me about my calls to Dell customer support and Dell tech support when my wife decided she wanted a Dell laptop. Worst support ever.

    --Dave Romig, Jr.

  125. Verizon's official response: a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon has posted a brief explanation of the problem on their website:
    http://netservices.verizon.net/portal/site/msa/?ep i-content=GENERICCONTENT&viewID=content&action=ann ouncementview&epi_menuItemID=3b5b13ac7c2403335f23b 61153295c48&nv=F-iv&hsl=true&fr=y&id=email_interru ption

    Verizon Online E-Mail Interruption on April 22-23, 2006
    At 5 a.m. EST on April 22, Verizon Online implemented an update to our anti-spam software that contained a software defect. The defect inadvertently caused incoming e-mail to verizon.net e-mail accounts from various mail servers to be returned to the sender and not delivered to its intended verizon.net recipient. The sender of the e-mail should have received a notice stating that their e-mail had not been delivered because it was identified as spam. The e-mail providers affected included AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, Google, RoadRunner and other smaller e-mail providers. Our customers' ability to send e-mail during this time was not affected.

    Verizon was able to resolve the issue and incoming mail delivery from the affected mail servers resumed by midnight, April 23 EST.

    Verizon Online customers who think they may not have received e-mails they were expecting over the weekend should contact the sender and ask them to re-send the e-mail. Those sending e-mail to verizon.net e-mail accounts through one of the affected e-mail services should not need to take any action to have their e-mail unblocked.

    We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.