Email-only hosting

On Sep 15, 2006, at 10:07 PM, chuck goolsbee wrote:
> Honestly email protocols (SMTP, POP, IMAP, etc) are probably the most
> platform agnostic ones in existence. Mail is pretty much the same on
> all platforms. We've been supporting Macs, Mac users and have been
> using Macintosh computers as servers (we still have two of our six or
> so mail servers running on some version of MacOS. Don't know if that
> counts for anything.

Just two caveats here. Some mail programs don't support IMAP, and
some servers, or at least ONE, ApolloHosting.com, has a buggy version
of POP. Well, they tell me that the spec for POP doesn't require
lines longer than 256 characters to be transmitted in full, so they
allow their system to truncate them. When I was using their service
I was also using MailSmith, which doesn't support IMAP, so I was
stuck with truncated lines in any email that had long paragraphs
without hard wrapping. That was just one of the reasons I no longer
use them, and I doubt that you will find that with a service that is
aimed at primarily providing email service (this was a web hosting
account primarily), but it's just a warning that such a thing can be
found in the jungle out there.

Geoff Odhner

On Sep 15, 2006, at 10:07 PM, chuck goolsbee wrote:

> coming up. Forwarding is the PRIMARY reason for legitimate mail being
> blocked from legitimate sources by the larger ISP's (such as AOL,
> Comcast, Telus, Verizon, Roadrunner, etc, etc.)

My domain host has been struggling with this this summer and other
problems that have been getting their SMTP servers put on antispam
lists.

First, they disabled all catch-all forwarding (where *any* mail sent to
your address is forwarded to a single address) with an exception for
gmail.com as the destination. Then they disabled auto-respond/vacation
messages for catch-alls. AOL requested they stop *all* forwarding to
their domain entirely. AOL kept tagging their servers as spammers so it
was in their best interests. Most recently, they stopped forwarding to
Comcast.

Still, in the past month (for the first time ever) I've had 2 messages
bounced back to me by antispam services (SpamCop related) because the
SMTP server was on a "bad" list; one was to a friend's corporate email
address but the other was to two professors on their department's mail
server. I was able to re-send using my account's webmail (which
presumably uses a different SMTP server) but it made me wonder if I've
had undelivered mail due to server-level antispam service that *don't*
notify the sender.

At 12:15 PM -0700 9/14/06, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
>Are you looking for a forwarder where e-mail is sent to another account, or
>something that will actually hold your mail and act as a full server?
>
>I use active-domain.com to register domains and then set it to forward
>e-mails for those domains to my main e-mail account. I pay $10 a year for
>the domain, e-mail forwarding and dns (if needed).

        I use active-domain.com to do the same, but have started to use
zoneedit.com for better DNS and mailforwarding services - for example they
let me edit SPF TXT records, and do dynamic DNS as well. They do it for
free for the first few domains, and seem to have reasonable prices
thereafter.

<http://openspf.org/>
<http://zoneedit.com/>

        Even with my own domain - I still pay for my old pobox.com account
- mostly because I have always felt that they did such a great job doing
email forwarding. I see that they now also offer full POP/IMAP accounts as
well as personal domain support if you are looking for something beyond
simple forwarding. They are also one of the driving forces (or at least
employed one of) behind the SPF system.

<http://pobox.com/>

--
* Johann Beda - contact link: <http://xri.net/=j-beda> *
* Johann's MostlyMac Computer Consulting - <http://mmcc.beda.ca/> *

At 7:07 PM -0700 9/15/06, chuck goolsbee wrote:
>We have seriously contemplated dropping support for automated
>forwarding like this for a while. Our current plan is to slowly
>migrate all mail users to new mail servers (which do not allow
>forwarding) and leave behind a sort of "mail ghetto" for users who
>insist on forwarding. This way when that server gets blocked, it will
>only hurt those who insist upon being forwarded and won't cause
>damage to the majority who actually use the server as it was
>designed: as their mail access point.

        I think that part of the SPF system is the "Sender Rewriting
Scheme" which is supposed to address this. I would hope that your system is
doing this for mail it is forwarding now.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Rewriting_Scheme>
<http://www.openspf.org/srs.html>

        I just ran into this problem yesterday as our local university just
decided to implement a very strict SPF policy (without of course telling
any of the multitude of people sending university email from their home
ISP's SMTP server), and we are now getting a lot of bounces from places
using strict drop policies based on SPF. The particular case that brought
it to my attention was when mail my wife sent to an associate bounced
because that associate was using a forwarder the place is was forwarding to
rejected it because of the problems that Chuck pointed out. I think SPF is
great, but clearly our local university didn't think about their rollout
very carefully....



--
* Johann Beda - contact link: <http://xri.net/=j-beda> *
* Johann's MostlyMac Computer Consulting - <http://mmcc.beda.ca/> *

Dot mac is now blocking ALL e-mail forwarded from my main domain name, with no bounce or error messages.

The problem seems to have massively escalated since about September 8th, according to the support forums, but virtually NO WORD from APPLE about the issue.

bruce potter

Curtis Wilcox mused:
>... it made me wonder if I've had undelivered mail due to
>server-level antispam service that *don't* notify the sender.

I'm sure that happens. I have occasionally been told that a message
which I had sent wouldn't have been seen except for the fact that the
intended recipient scanned through segregated spam looking for false
positives (of which my message was one).

Closer to home, if I send an email to myself, the AT&T Yahoo
(formerly SBC Yahoo) mail server will almost always put that message
into my Bulk mail folder. This is in spite of the facts that (a) my
own address is in my own address book and (b) the message originated
on a Yahoo server where I was logged as a paying customer (and
therefore could be considered an authenticated sender).

What's most frustrating about the problem is that I can't find any
good resource to help me discover why I'm treated as a spammer, or to
get myself de-classified as such. Changing my email address would
cause more problems than it would solve, and in any case would only
be a workaround until the next time a recipient hits the Spam button
instead of the Delete button by mistake.

I can understand why such resources might be hard to find, because
the good guys don't want the bad guys to learn how to get around the
weapons that are being used against them. But understanding that
doesn't help my level of frustration. Any ideas or suggestions?

Carl

>Dot mac is now blocking ALL e-mail forwarded from my main domain name,
>with no bounce or error messages.

>The problem seems to have massively escalated since about September 8th,
>according to the support forums, but virtually NO WORD from APPLE
>about the issue.

heh... as I've always said about .mac: "You'll never know how much
mail you do not receive."

.mac is a total black hole. I've never managed to have any sort of
luck working out an operational mail or network issue with them. They
are as opaque as yahoo when it comes to dealing with them on an
operational basis. Contrast this with AOL, who has a well-staffed and
well-functioning postmaster department who are a pleasure to work
with.

I can appreciate the lack of support for a "free" service, but if
your customers are paying you, they should be getting value for that
money. I never thought I'd say it, but AOL customers are getting
value for their money.

--
Chuck Goolsbee V.P. Technical Operations
_________________________________________________________________
digital.forest Phone: +1-877-720-0483, x2001
where Internet solutions grow Int'l: +1-206-838-1630
*** celebrating twelve years of service 7/12/1994 - 7/12/2006 ***
12101 Tukwila International Blvd Fax: +1-206-838-3749
Suite 410 http://www.forest.net
Seattle, WA 98168 email: cgforest.net

I'm a long-time Fastmail.fm user, and I have to say that they're the
best email-only host I've found. The feature set of their web
interface, address book, and email client support is excellent.

However, virtually ANY web/domain host will provide email in addition
to their other services, so you may actually prefer an account with
such a host since you can easily grow into more services if you want to.

In any case, these are the things that I recommend you look for in an
email host:

DO NOT use a parking/forwarding account: Mail forwarders are
unreliable. Even really reliable ones are unreliable. The forwarded
email can get caught in spam filters, and you don't have the benefits
of the MX tree to ensure delivery even during downtime. Get a REAL
email provider with an SMTP server, and a POP3/IMAP server.

IMAP and POP3 support: Newer clients support IMAP, and I think it's
the best thing for email since, well, anything, but sometimes POP3 is
better for specific applications and uses.

SMTP: Get an account with its own SMTP server. Your own ISP's server
may or may not let you send email with a from: header that isn't
through your ISP's domain. And even if it does, that will make it
that much more likely that your email will be tagged as spam.

A good web interface: Sometimes you're on the road. Make sure you can
access your email from a web interface that works well. SquirrelMail
may not cut it, but YMMV.

Server-side spam and virus filtering: Cut down on the amount you
download. Make sure that your host provides good administration of
their spam solution, as well. Nothing worse than having an email host
which blacklists your favorite newsletter and gives you no means to
take it off the blacklist. (That happened to my parents, and
ultimately chased them to Fastmail.)

Secure SMTP, IMAP and POP3 access: If you're ever logging in from a
public area, you'll want to be able to get in without sending your
password in cleartext in the middle of, say, an airport. Even if you
aren't a security wonk, it's easy to set up secure access and it's a
nice thing to have. You don't have to be very selective to get it,
either.

Multiple mail accounts and/or aliases: Fastmail only lets you set up
aliases on your paid account, but other providers (especially domain
providers) will let you set up more than one account. Very nice if
you're providing email for your whole family or if you want to have a
special junk mail account to send registrations to.

Good uptime and reliability: As an example, even though Fastmail went
dark for 3-4 days, I didn't lose a SINGLE piece of email. That's the
kind of reliability I like.

Server-side filters: This is getting a bit obscure, but with IMAP
access, it can be very nice to have your host filter messages for
you. (Typically through Postfix or Sieve or some other filtering
lingo.) That way I can use the web account and still have my filing
rules take place. Pretty slick once you get used to it.

And yeah, this may sound like a laundry list of Fastmail's features,
but hey, I'm really happy with them and they're the bar I hold other
providers to. There are PLENTY of other email and web providers who
provide all the same benefits.

Check around the various forums and rating sites on the web to find a
good host, and post to this list with whomever you're considering.
I'm sure you can get some good feedback.

--Nik

At 5:23 AM -0700 9/19/06, chuck goolsbee wrote:
>I can appreciate the lack of support for a "free" service, but if
>your customers are paying you, they should be getting value for that
>money. I never thought I'd say it, but AOL customers are getting
>value for their money.

        Hopefully the will also "get what they don't pay for". AOL recently
started offering free service if you already have an ISP to get Internet
connection:

<http://free.aol.com/>
"100% FREE! Includes comprehensive safety & security, AOL e-mail, and
full-length videos. You simply bring an Internet connection (dial-up or any
DSL or cable connection)."


--
* Johann Beda - contact link: <http://xri.net/=j-beda> *
* Johann's MostlyMac Computer Consulting - <http://mmcc.beda.ca/> *

Nik wrote:

> SMTP: Get an account with its own SMTP server. Your own ISP's server
> may or may not let you send email with a from: header that isn't
> through your ISP's domain. And even if it does, that will make it
> that much more likely that your email will be tagged as spam.

Make sure it supports SMTP AUTH on port 587. Many ISP will NOT let you
send out via the standard SMTP. (Port 25) This is usually blocked to
anything but the ISP's servers to cut down on SPAM and to be able to
track it if it goes through their servers.

> SMTP: Get an account with its own SMTP server. Your own ISP's server > may or may not let you send email with a from: header that isn't > through your ISP's domain. And even if it does, that will make it > that much more likely that your email will be tagged as spam.

Make sure it supports SMTP AUTH on port 587. Many ISP will NOT let you send out via the standard SMTP. (Port 25) This is usually blocked to anything but the ISP's servers to cut down on SPAM and to be able to track it if it goes through their servers.

Also make sure you have an ISP that allows sending from another SMTP server. Earthlink doesn't. For example, I can't specify smtp.mac.com as my SMTP server when connected via Earthlink DSL; Earthlink requires me to use the Earthlink SMTP server, even though it allows anything I want in the from: line.

I have intermittent problems with Earthlink not sending my mail (even from my Earthlink email address) using Eudora 6. Usually it sends fine, but once a week or so I get a message something to the effect that the host server refuses to allow relaying. It seems to have to do with that Port 25 issue (or so says Earthlink tech support), but I can't get Eudora to use SMTP AUTH on port 587 even though it allegedly supports it. It simply doesn't find the server. Mail.app works fine with AUTH, but I prefer Eudora. This may have to do with being connected to the Internet via a D-Link router, since if I unplug from the router and connect the DSL modem directly to the computer, it solves the problem (as does power cycling all devices in the Internet connection chain).

SteveJ1 wrote:

> Also make sure you have an ISP that allows sending from another SMTP
> server. Earthlink doesn't. For example, I can't specify smtp.mac.com as
> my SMTP server when connected via Earthlink DSL; Earthlink requires me
> to use the Earthlink SMTP server, even though it allows anything I want
> in the from: line.

Earthlink will allow you to use any SMTP server you want via SMTP AUTH.
Or at least that's what I've found.

And the world is evolving to where ISPs will NOT let you use other SMTP
servers unless it's SMTP AUTH. Port 25 out of the network is vanishing.

> I have intermittent problems with Earthlink not sending my mail (even
> from my Earthlink email address) using Eudora 6. Usually it sends fine,
> but once a week or so I get a message something to the effect that the
> host server refuses to allow relaying. It seems to have to do with that
> Port 25 issue (or so says Earthlink tech support), but I can't get
> Eudora to use SMTP AUTH on port 587 even though it allegedly supports
> it. It simply doesn't find the server. Mail.app works fine with AUTH,
> but I prefer Eudora. This may have to do with being connected to the
> Internet via a D-Link router, since if I unplug from the router and
> connect the DSL modem directly to the computer, it solves the problem
> (as does power cycling all devices in the Internet connection chain). --

I've made SMTP AUTH work for multiple folks on Earthlink Cable but there
may be other issues in other parts of the country or with DSL. You do
know you have to use a differently named server for Earthlink SMTP AUTH.
I guess if Mail.app works you've figured that out.

I use D-Link routers as door stops and to fill empty storage space. :)

Max MTU set to 1492?

On 21 Sep 2006, at 12:14 , SteveJ1 wrote:
> Also make sure you have an ISP that allows sending from another
> SMTP server. Earthlink doesn't. For example, I can't specify
> smtp.mac.com as my SMTP server when connected via Earthlink DSL;
> Earthlink requires me to use the Earthlink SMTP server, even though
> it allows anything I want in the from: line.

This is the point of using port 587, to circumvent such restrictions.

--
"Yes," said the skull. "Quit while you're a head, that's what I say."

We recently switched to Earthlink from ATT for dsl service, and purchased a D-Link wireless router, intending to connect both home computers through the router.

Then we learned, after countless long calls to Delhi, India, that Earthlink won't support D-Link routers, but will rent us their router for $7.95 a month, which includes tech help. Is this legal? Is there someway to make the router work on our own? We've tried but it appears that Earthlink may be blocking it.

Thanks!

--On June 20, 2007 5:00:32 PM -0700 Leslie Rodd <leslieroddearthlink.net>
wrote:

> Then we learned, after countless long calls to Delhi, India, that
> Earthlink won't support D-Link routers, but will rent us their router for
> $7.95 a month, which includes tech help. Is this legal? Is there someway
> to make the router work on our own? We've tried but it appears that
> Earthlink may be blocking it.

They shouldn't even be able to tell. My guess is they locked the IP address
they assigned you to the MAC (media access control) address of your network
card. The D-Link router should have a "Clone MAC address" feature, probably
in the WAN setup area (they changed their interface from what my D-Link's
have so I can't say for sure). This will set the WAN MAC address of the
router to the same as your computer and should full Earthlink into thinking
you've put your computer back online.

It's possible they did something with the network name as well, so you may
need to assign the router the same network name your computer has.

Kevin

Leslie Rodd wrote:
> We recently switched to Earthlink from ATT for dsl service, and
> purchased a D-Link wireless router, intending to connect both home
> computers through the router.
>
> Then we learned, after countless long calls to Delhi, India, that
> Earthlink won't support D-Link routers, but will rent us their router
> for $7.95 a month, which includes tech help. Is this legal? Is there
> someway to make the router work on our own? We've tried but it
> appears that Earthlink may be blocking it.
>
You're likely not going to like this answer. You bought DSL service from Earthlink, not router configuration support. If you want help with your D-Link, you'll need to call them. I'm sure that Earthlink's position is that they supply a working DSL connection. If you want to attach any brand of router that's fine. Just don't expect us, Earthlink, to configure it for you.

So you can call D-Link, call the Geek Squad for about $150, hire a local consultant for $50 to $200, or maybe buy a beer for a knowledgeable friend. Remember that each time you call Earthlink it costs them anywhere from $10 to $50 to talk to you. At some point you become too much of a loss for them to continue to talk to you.

Now as to D-Link, well there are many brands of routers that I will no longer buy. And I've bought 40 or more over the years since broadband arrived. Both for myself and for clients. Lets just say the brand you mentioned in nowhere near the top of my list in terms of choice. It would have to be the only thing on the shelf and an extreme emergency before I'd buy one of them.

David Ross

On 6/20/07 at 5:00 PM, leslieroddearthlink.net (Leslie Rodd) wrote:

>We recently switched to Earthlink from ATT for dsl service, and
>purchased a D-Link wireless router, intending to connect both home
>computers through the router.

Ironic. I went from Earthlink to ATT for dsl due to a move and
Earthlink's web information indicating they couldn't or wouldn't
provide dsl at my new location.

>Then we learned, after countless long calls to Delhi, India, that
>Earthlink won't support D-Link routers, but will rent us their
>router for $7.95 a month, which includes tech help. Is this legal?
>Is there someway to make the router work on our own? We've tried but
>it appears that Earthlink may be blocking it.

Yes, Earthlink's official line is an extra charge to run a
router as you describe. I assume what you get for that is
Earthlink support for the installation as well as the router.
But, I had run for at least two - three years a wireless router
with no additional charge from Earthlink. In fact, with a
properly configured system, I don't believe they have anyway to
determine you are running a wireless router much less block it.

Initially, I used a Proxim 802.11b router. Later I switched this
to a LinkSys 802.11b router which proved more reliable with
better connectivity. And later when it came available, I
switched to Airport Express which I used with Earthlink and
currently use with ATT. All during this time, there was no case
where Earthlink blocked me or in any way interfered with my setup.

[Let's wrap it up. I don't see any "email only hosting" left in the conversation. -Andrew]

On Jun 20, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Leslie Rodd wrote:

> We recently switched to Earthlink from ATT for dsl service, and
> purchased a D-Link wireless router, intending to connect both home
> computers through the router.
>
> Then we learned, after countless long calls to Delhi, India, that
> Earthlink won't support D-Link routers, but will rent us their
> router for $7.95 a month, which includes tech help. Is this legal?
> Is there someway to make the router work on our own? We've tried
> but it appears that Earthlink may be blocking it.

See if this helps: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/7125.

I just got rid of DSL with Verizon, but we had a Westell DSL modem
and used it with no problems for over three years.

If there is a problem, it would be between the DSL modem and the
router. Earthlink itself shouldn't have anything to do with this.
What they may have are preconfigured routers that they know work with
the Westel device. With the D-Link routers, you do have to have the
most up to date firmware installed.

David Weintraub
davidweintraubworld.net
davidweintraub.name

On Jun 20, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Leslie Rodd wrote:

> We recently switched to Earthlink from ATT for dsl service, and
> purchased a D-Link wireless router, intending to connect both home
> computers through the router.
>
> Then we learned, after countless long calls to Delhi, India, that
> Earthlink won't support D-Link routers, but will rent us their
> router for $7.95 a month, which includes tech help. Is this legal?
> Is there someway to make the router work on our own? We've tried
> but it appears that Earthlink may be blocking it.
>
> Thanks

We recently switched away from Earthlink to TDS for dsl service. Our
experience with Earthlink was not good, and we wouldn't recommend
them. However, we were able to connect all of our computers through
an Airport Extreme without a problem.

I found this URL which may help you. <http://raxso.wordpress.com/set-
up-pppoe-dsl-connections-with-a-d-link-router/>

Malcolm

[OK, this is the last message in this thread, just to keep the entire off-topic discussion together. -Adam]

For over three years I had Earthlink DSL in Orange County, CA. Because of the nature of DSL, it of course ran through first SBC and then AT&T POTS lines to their central office (AT&T recently acquired SBC, formerly PacBell, formerly Pacific Bell, and 25 years ago all part of the Old AT&T). Sometime in mid-2005 I connected a Belkin router to it all and obtained wireless in my house. It worked just OK on a Dell desktop, Toshiba laptop, and my fiance's iBook. Last March 2006 I switched everything to Mac and got an iMac Intel and then in July a MacBookPro Intel. Both connected with complete ease (I really didn't even notice) to Earthlink via the Belkin Router across AT&T telephone lines into their central office, and Earthlink remained my ISP. My fiance's iBook continued to run just fine and connect through the same router -- three Macs. A month or so ago, I discovered that Earthlink's DSL download speed was inadequate (1.5 mb/ s MAX), so I switched to Cox cable modem for both cable internet at max 9 Mb/s download AND for VoIP telephone service. Cox's modem eliminated the need for the Belkin router.

I know of no technical reason a home (or business, for that matter) DSL customer should not be able to select a Router of their own choosing to have wireless in their home or office.

BTW, when you switched from AT&T to Earthlink, while you were probably not told this by either company, the telephone side service was no doubt all the same. Often these companies use the same technical provider -- Covad is the leading company -- and what you're really getting is the ISP service outside and beyond the telephone company's central office. For all we know, Tech Support may even be the same our-sourcing entity in India.

Good luck.

Dave Clark http://home.earthlink.net/~dc1999/ http://web.mac.com/dave28c http://www.clarklawfirm.com