Re: Major bug in SMTP rate-limiting implementation
somegirl
Champion - Level 3

@corbulon wrote:
If not another e-mail provider, why not use facebook/twitter (or other social media) OR something like Yahoo Groups?

Are you suggesting, we switch to software/service simply because Verizon can't fix its SMTP-handling? Thanks... Maybe, some day, e-mail service at major ISPs will go the way of Usenet. But I hope, that day is not coming.

I have several reasons against facebook/twitter (which did not even exist, when our club began) and Yahoo! Groups, but posting these reasons here will take the discussion even further off-topic.

And the topic is: Verizon's SMTP-servers have a bug, which needs fixing.


Actually, Verizon's servers are configured in a way that you don't agree with. That doesn't make it a bug. Again, *you* are the one violating the email use limits. Repeatedly. Verizon can limit that behavior in any way they want.

It's not a bug, it's an inconvenience to you.

I am all for the service being more convenient, but this is like saying that because a particular door swings a different way than the door at your house, it is broken. It's not broken. They just built it differently than you wanted them to. It's their door.

Re: Major bug in SMTP rate-limiting implementation
dslr595148
Community Leader
Community Leader

@corbulon wrote:
If not another e-mail provider, why not use facebook/twitter (or other social media) OR something like Yahoo Groups?

Are you suggesting, we switch to software/service simply because Verizon can't fix its SMTP-handling? Thanks... Maybe, some day, e-mail service at major ISPs will go the way of Usenet.



While I know that Verizon no longer offers Usenet, there are Usenet Servers that you can connect to:

#1 Some are paid and some are free (with certain limits).

#2 Certian limits includes not limited to: The amount of data you can traffer in a given amount of ( like 500 GB per month ) time.

^^

0 Likes
Re: Major bug in SMTP rate-limiting implementation
corbulon
Enthusiast - Level 3
Actually, Verizon's servers are configured in a way that you don't agree with. That doesn't make it a bug.

Returning a permanent error in the case of a temporary condition is a bug. Look up "SMTP".

Again, *you* are the one violating the email use limits. Repeatedly.

If Verizon made it a policy, that words "mortgage" and "viagra" can not occur in outgoing e-mails, would you still be siding with them? What is your "this is ridiculous" threshold? I claim, the current policy has a bug in it — whether the policy is spelled in (Legalese) English or in some programming language is irrelevant.

Verizon can limit that behavior in any way they want.

They can, which is why I am not suing them. However, working with servers and configuring server software for a living myself, I can recognize an unintended consequence, when I see one.

This is, clearly, a bug -- it does neither Verizon nor its customers any good whatsoever to treat innocent customers as spammers. And I know, how the current situation came into being. The conversation went similar to this:

  • We need to prevent spam from originating on our computers.
  • Oh, recognizing spam as such is a very difficult task...
  • Is it really? Ok, how about we simply limit the number of messages each customer can send per hour? Pick a high limit — anybody sending above that can only be a spammer...
  • Yes, we can implement that, no problem.
  • Go ahead, thanks!

In other words, somebody at some point suggested, that exceeding a certain number of e-mails per hour is a reliable indication of spamming activity. And it was then agreed, that anybody thus identified be treated as a spammer...

My example demonstrates, how a legitimate user can exceed the limit without being a spammer. Just as it is possible to discuss mortgages and viagra without being a spammer, or wear a short skirt without being a prostitute, it is possible to send large amount of e-mails on occasion. This shows, that "sending too much" is not a reliable indication of spamming and anything, that treats it as such is buggy.

Yes, it is still likely that such high rate is due to a spam-bot infection, but it is not a guarantee of it. My proposal contains a fix — high rate sending is stemmed, but without bounces. Instead of an error, the users get a delay. Verizon thanked me for it. {Censored}

0 Likes
Re: Major bug in SMTP rate-limiting implementation
corbulon
Enthusiast - Level 3
While I know that Verizon no longer offers Usenet, there are Usenet Servers that you can connect to

The whole point of Usenet was that the servers local to end-users exchange data between each other affording the users quick access to it. Internet has improved very much since those times, but it is still a good idea to share/exchange the information this way...

0 Likes
Re: Chronic SMTP server issue @ outgoing.verizon.net port 465
sneech1
Newbie

This issue has reared is head again. Cannot send messages because connectivity to outgoing.verizon.net port 465 is unavailable. 

This is 3rd time in 4 months I have experienced this issue. Resolution is always wait until Verizon fixes.

Oh well......

0 Likes