What is the Deal with SBC? E-mail Issue.

G

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
For the last month I have been jumping through every hoop imaginable to try to get my company's Exchange server to be able to deliver to SBC internet customers. We do not run an open relay, I've run through every RBL I could find, and I've even added an SPF record where there was previously none. No matter what I do, SBC continues to bounce my e-mail and its tech support reps continue to refuse to give me contact info for where I can solve the problem (which I assume is because there is no such contact, since they have been unaware of any existence of such a thing to date).

This is extremely infuriating, and forcing us to have to rely solely on faxes and phone calls when an e-mail would be faster, more efficient, and save time. I am quickly running out of hoops I can jump through, and my only other option is going to be having our ISP change our account's static IP address, which is going to be a support nightmare for me due to the high number of remote users and site-to-site connections we have.

Does anyone have information on how to get SBC playing nice with e-mails? There has to be some other people here out there who have had this problem.
 
Do you have a static IP on the Internet and a business class ISP>?
I had 2 companies that could not send emails to @sbcglobal.net folks, funny, 1 customer was an SBC customer as well.
BUT the problem was both customers were running DHCP IP's and SBC wouldnt accept emails coming from DHCP IP's and also wouldnt accept emails from 'residential' IP's.

- solution for both was to route the Exchange emails, through the SBCGlobal.net SMTP servers (smtp.sbcglobal.yahoo.com) as a smart host in Exchange
 
T1 lines, static IPs, reverse DNS, SPF records, business account. Every RBL I check has my mail server either in the green or not listed altogether. Been on this current T1 line for six months, and only the last four weeks have been a problem. No open relay-- I checked. No exploited computers, either.

I've done every part of due diligence I could think of to track down the problem. The only problem I can isolate is SBC, which I have no access to. Is there a way to send their DNS admins a message, letting them know they are blocking a valid mail server that is in no way associated with spam?
 
Yeah, and that's what is driving me up a wall. My company has clients who use SBC, and I really don't want to relay off another server just for a few customers of stupid-ass SBC.
 
I'll see if I can come up with something for you. I used to work there and still have good contact with one of the external affairs people. They mostly do political/media stuff but are good at pointing in the right direction.

I'll pm you if I need more info or I find out a contact for you. Can't promise anything though...SBC/ATT is so tight-lipped and "paranoid" that they may not give out any information like that.
 
Tight-lipped and paranoid? Yet they give away their customer's phone call history? I will never be an SBC customer, nor will I ever pay for service from AT&T, specifically because they are one of the most user-hostile telecos out there, and even worse when it comes to their internet service. Add to that their flagship anti-net-neutrality campaigns, and they make me thoroughly sick

However, as much as I hate them, I still must facilitate communication with them. If you know someone who can give me contact info that can help, I would be very appreciative. If they live in Dallas (or Plano, where the SBC HQ is), I'll even send them a twelver of their favorite beer.
 
Welcome to the new ATT, where your problems are your problems, and don't bug them with it if you know what's good for you.

You know, basically, the old sbc.

You may try forwarding your email through another server; Say the one your ISP has available for their own use. It's a temp solution, but it should work while you get this straightened out with sbc.

Which could take a very long time. The larger the corporation, the less they like to make decisions.
 
hehe..yeah...tight lipped and paranoid...but only about themselves.

They think everyone is out to get them (and probably rightfully so)...and their information security group acts like they're from Mel Gibson's "Conspiracy Theory".
 
Nah, I'll just bounce them off the company web server, which shouldn't have any problems. The problem I have with it is that it's just one more piece of idiocy that I have to manage, as if I don't already have enough to keep track of with offices in three states and remote users who were used to remote working before I came on board.

The biggest irony is that since this is Dallas, SBC pretty much owns most of the backbone anyway. They (as a company) behave like a six-year-old with a magnifying glass to every business smaller than them, and they're your typical 800lb gorilla.

Who said they split up Ma Bell? ;)
 
I always setup an SMTP forward to the ISPs SMTP server, or in more cases..to our hosting partners SMTP server (on custom ports)

Keeps it more worry free.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
I always setup an SMTP forward to the ISPs SMTP server, or in more cases..to our hosting partners SMTP server (on custom ports)

Keeps it more worry free.
Click to expand...
"Worry free" or "non-standard pain in the ass?" We have two dedicated business lines here to mitigate the issue of compliance. Sending to any other companies throughout the world is completely without a problem because we're 100% compliant with the RFC standards. I don't buy how jumping through non-standard hoops for one company (SBC) is a 'solution' to the problem, because that still means the problem is on their end.
 
To add to the weirdness is that I am an SBC customer and I run an email server from my house and I'm find sending to anyone SBC or not (except AOHell which will just eat my email, not even bounce it).
 
GreNME said:
"Worry free" or "non-standard pain in the ass?".
Click to expand...

Both.
:D

Worry free because you don't have to deal with the pain in the butt things like this nearly as much. Yes agree many of these become difficult even though you're conforming to standards. But bottom line is...I don't want to hear people complain "How come my contacts at AOHell or SBC can't receive my e-mail?"

Sure I'd love to reply "Well tell them to get a REAL e-mail server"...but I can't. Gotta bite my tongue and deal with it.

ISPs changing their rules all the time in how they battle against spam...pain in the butt.
 
Oh, I don't care if someone wants to use AOL or SBC as their ISP. However, as an ISP, that company has a responsibility to either a) comply fully with the standards that exist out there, or b) make sure that every one of us who do comply with standards know what they are doing different, so that we can adjust accordingly.

I know what I could do in order to trick e-mail through. However, that is a hit-and-miss method that still leaves me with no answer. I want an answer, so I don't have to face this headache again the next time SBC wants to shift its goalposts just to make life harder for other businesses.
 
Makes me really appreciate Verizon. when my home email server moved from one IP to another, I couldn't send to Verizon users. They included a link to a clearing process in the bounce notice.

I already had SPF records set up for my domains. Filled in their form, 24 hours later they sent me an email letting me know they had cleared traffic from me on their end. No muss, no fuss.
 
Heh, do you have that Verizon form bookmarked? I just discovered that customers who have verizon can't get my mail either.

On the SBC side, I just went ahead and am relaying off the ISP. However, the ISP must be having some fuss with Verizon, so now those are bouncing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top