Unacceptable: Forced to use WBS's SMTP server

[Arthur]

Last weekend's email announcing that from Monday 27 June we'll be forced to use WBS's SMTP server refers:

I use my own SMTP servers, and frequently switch between different connectivities (mainly DSL and iBurst). Now WBS want to force us to use their SMTP server, ostensibly to stop spam relays. As records will show, we never send spam or bulk emails, so why treat us like those sociopaths?

This is an unacceptable change in the service - we simply can't reconfig everyone's email every time we change connection type at the gateway, which is sometimes several times a day.

Anyone else have an issue with this?

[rant] BTW, I sent WBS an email about this on Monday. I also called Cust Svcs and explained the issue (as the email said we should). No-one understood the problem, thinking I needed help setting up email. Eventually I was promised someone would phone back. Nothing happened.
Called again Tuesday and all 3 people before the voicemail black hole didn't understand - bounced from pillar to post. No progress.
Call WBS again today. Again, bounced from person to person re-explaining the problem over and over, and was eventually dumped into a voicemail box that disconnected me before I finished the message. Stymied again. Sigh.
WBS - this is outrageously pathetic customer service. I am a loyal fan and have long defended you. But now I'm getting angry at this off-hand treatment. Does anyone actaully work there anymore? If so, can they please contact me - I've made 5 phone calls and failed to speak to anyone who understands the problem.[/rant]

 

[regardtv]

Hi

While I agree this is an inconvenience there are actauly a number of good reasons for this. Many international ISP's also do so.

What I would suggest is that, if you're using a central gateway to do your connection management with iBurst & DSL; simply do your own smtp forwarding...

If on a linux box ... simply redirect all packets heading for tcp port 25 to smtp.wbs.co.za when you're on iburst and to your dsl provider's smtp service when on adsl.

 

[jmn]

Last weekend's email announcing that from Monday 27 June we'll be forced to use WBS's SMTP server refers

What email? Didn't get anything...

 

[Crash]

Unfortunately, thats the way it is done at most ISP's in South Africa and Overseas.

Why don't you get your SMTP mail server to forward through WBS Mail Server?

And why are you running a mail server on iBurst and ADSL ???

 

[reech]

Unfortunately, thats the way it is done at most ISP's in South Africa and Overseas.

- I have never encoutered this.

 

[regardtv]

Most mail servers would these days not accept mail sent directly from "dynamic" ip's not specifically authorized to do so ... so even though you're not using outgoing smtp servers ... a bit of your mail could end up just not getting delivered as isp's often drop such mail ... (webmail & mweb being prime examples).

 

[savage]

Only port 25 is intercepted, and it is quite common.... If you want to use your own SMTP Server for whatever reason, do so over SSL... It uses a different port, and due to the encryption, cannot be intercepted.

 

[Raithlin]

Never got no email.

 

[DFantom]

Last weekend's email announcing that from Monday 27 June we'll be forced to use WBS's SMTP server refers:

Could you please post the email...as I have seen no such email :/

Now WBS want to force us to use their SMTP server, ostensibly to stop spam relays. As records will show, we never send spam or bulk emails, so why treat us like those sociopaths?

We?!? Who is this we? There is plenty of iBurst users sending spam, unknown to them though because they are just part of some bot net.

Anyone else have an issue with this?

It very much depends on how it is done. If they are preventing people from running an SMTP server on there connection I am ok with it. If they are preventing people from connecting to other legit SMTP servers off their network then I have a problem with it.

 

[alchamy]

It very much depends on how it is done. If they are preventing people from running an SMTP server on there connection I am ok with it. If they are preventing people from connecting to other legit SMTP servers off their network then I have a problem with it.

My concern exactly, if they prevent me from hosting my own SMTP server that is fine, however if they block access to other e-mail accounts which I use I will be forced to cancel the service and search for an alternative.

 

[jmn]

If the package (3 GB in my case) is optimised for, amongst others, email (as advertised on their site), then I should at least be able to run any email application on my connection using industry standard protocols and ports.

It's enough that I'm dependent on somebody's services for the basic connection, at the price I don't want to be forced to use their other "services" as well.

 

[8321]

Never saw an email. Obviously not an abuser.

 

[kuberkoos]

legitimate use...

say i'd like to use a webmail provider's smtp server to send mail from that address? (port 25 and smtp-auth)

does iburst's smtp server check the from address when relaying, or does it relay anything as long as if comes from an iburst subscriber.

this is bull! wbs' net nannying is getting a bit much. (p2p limits, forced proxy, smtp. what is next, blocking our hungarian midget porn?)

chz,
kk

PS: o yeah. WHAT FRIGGIN email?? i didn't get anything. helllllloooo WBS.

 

[lilgindauk]

Aol u.k uses smtp servers aswell as hotmail, but you see the thing is AOL has its own browser and its own, so if your using a router, uPnP is highly reccommended!

 

[ic]

..., blocking our hungarian midget porn?...

ROFL

PS: Also received no such WBS email this side...

 

[Kei]

I have my own domain and e-mail and I don't use the mailbox WBS provide because

1) I don't need it
2) I don't like it
3) I can't send mail with it

Now, if WBS suddenly decide that I can no longer SMTP mail using my hosting, for which I pay R235-00/month, I am going to the consumer council and I will shove this UTD where the sun doesn't shine. They have no right to deny me use of a valid domain for which I have paid for and owned since 2002. I configured the server properly and it is difficult to use it for spambots or mass-mailers unless my desktop is infected but, there is this setting where I can limit the number of outgoing mails in a defined time.

It seems that I will soon be taking the step backwards to having no internet at all.

 

[asmith]

You could just enabled SSL. Efectivley this makes SMTP a secure connection and uses a different port. Or setup a VPN to your server.

Anyhow their blocking of port 25 is not going to stop you sending mail as joe@mydomain.co.za, it just means the mail will go out from their server.

Yes, its a pain, but I dont blame them for doing it.

Even more drastic steps are needed to ensure email does not plunge into a spam and malware infested useless system. SMTP is sadly an antiquated protocol that was not developed with security and authentication in mind. Fortunately blocking systems can currently block spam and malware sufficiently well (about 70% of email is blocked) but as these guys get smarter it is going to get more difficult to stop the flood.

 

[Kei]

true- I will simply make the changes on my server but it's a pain in the ass because now I have to tell my mother in plain terms how to reconfigure her e-mail

 

[Arthur]

Perhaps I didn't explain. I have several websites hosted off-site by Hetzner Africa. One is a private family website use only by extended family members, one for the company, and another a closed special-interest group. I certainly don't have any web or mail servers on my own site - just ornery winstations accessing email, browsing, and doing office apps (almost all except my immediate family here at home use dial-up anyway). The largest email ever sent was to 23 users (the whole family), and perhaps two or three times. Like most people, I detest spam and aggressively work to reduce and oppose it, so the assumption that the WBS email was only sent to abusers is wrong. It was probably sent to those who don't use the WBS SMTP server.

Now I fully support banning spammers and abusers. These people are sociopathic pests who don't know the difference between freedom and licence. Surely it's easy to see who is abusing the system and deal with them -- and NOT all users of external SMTPs in the same light. Besides, here is a record of my iBurst usage over the past few months:

June 2005: 904MB total (mostly downloading the large Vegas 6 update)
May 2005: 119MB total usage
April 2005: 22MB total usage
March 2005: 41MB total usage

In total, perhaps 500 emails have been sent by all users over the past 6 months when connected to iBurst. This is very far from even the whiff of ordinary use, never mind abuse.

Again - in case you didn't get it and want to flame this way - I fully, unreservedly and wholeheatedly support the elimination of abusers, spammers, sender of bulk email, etc. Surely it is easy to identify these people? And surely an ISP and network provider should not treat its best users in the same way as abusers.

The WBS email is itself quite reasonable, and I fully support its intent. But, surely, it should apply to abusers and not every single person??

Here's the text of the email:

Due to excessive incidents of spamming on the iBurst network and the corresponding risk of being blacklisted by the various anti-spam organisations, we will be implementing certain preventative measures on our network.

As from Monday 27 June 2005:

a) All subscribers will only be permitted to relay outgoing mail through our authorised relay server, namely smtp.wbs.co.za. The majority of subscribers are already making use of this SMTP server within their email clients (such as MS Outlook). However, if this is not the case, subscribers are urged to use this mail relay as soon as possible. If you are unsure on how to implement the change, please contact our helpdesk.

Note: SMTP server, or otherwise known as outgoing mail server is a setting normally found within the account configuration section of your email client software.

b) The relaying of bulkmail is discouraged on the iBurst network. Certain restrictive measures will be enforced to ensure that the relaying of bulk mail does not adversely affect other traffic on the network.

If you anticipate that this policy may have a negative impact on you, you are kindly requested to contact Customer Services.

We are committed to continually enhancing your broadband experience and we believe measure such as these will improve the quality of service and network availability for all subscribers.


Regards,

WBS Helpdesk

 

[ic]

b) The relaying of bulkmail is discouraged on the iBurst network. Certain restrictive measures will be enforced to ensure that the relaying of bulk mail does not adversely affect other traffic on the network.

It almost sounds like WBS have run into a problem with customers emailing large attachments to bypass their shaping of all other protocols...