When did MWEB start relaying all mail through their servers?

[AstroTurf]

I have no problem with MWEB relaying SMTP/pop. In all the years with them we have never had a virus come in via email (many have tried though).

I run pure message anyway but so far it has not been needed.

 

[Will@MWEB]

Hi Gents

My apologies for not answering this sooner, I have been in meetings all morning

We have indeed started trialling this as of this morning. It has only been implemented on a small selection of ip blocks, not network wide, while we assess the impact. The redirection is only on port 25 and is very much in keeping with the type of strategy that almost every ISP is forced to have in place these days to combat the 'zombie traffic' which results in some serious blacklisting headaches.

AcidRazor if this caused you any inconvenience please accept my apology for this. You are still able to send directly to your own server using secure smtp ports, or alternatively if you send a PM to MWEB Operations referring to this conversation with the details of your email provider we can look at putting an exception in place for you.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Hi Gents

My apologies for not answering this sooner, I have been in meetings all morning

We have indeed started trialling this as of this morning. It has only been implemented on a small selection of ip blocks, not network wide, while we assess the impact. The redirection is only on port 25 and is very much in keeping with the type of strategy that almost every ISP is forced to have in place these days to combat the 'zombie traffic' which results in some serious blacklisting headaches.

AcidRazor if this caused you any inconvenience please accept my apology for this. You are still able to send directly to your own server using secure smtp ports, or alternatively if you send a PM to MWEB Operations referring to this conversation with the details of your email provider we can look at putting an exception in place for you.

My email accounts are linked to my website. This interception hasn't affected me yet, but it is good to know that you can put an exception in place. I regularly use WebAfrica, MWeb, iBurst, and MTN 3G from my laptop at different locations. I already have to change smtp server whenever I'm using iBurst. It would be a right royal pain in the butt having to change smtp server settings every time I use a different ISP.

 

[bboy]

You nominate him/her for dumbass of the day for what?
He/she is entirely correct. MWEB would be intercepting on port 25. The correct thing to do would be to use SSL over port 465.

Err because he/she did not answer what the OP was asking!
Because he/she then went on to assume facts there were not facts.
Because he/she then basically told the OP he needs to wake up and modify his services now when clearly MWEB have made a conflicting change.
Lets say our OP does use another port to get around this problem, sure it will work for him , he shouldn't have to do it, but what about the other MWEB users that know nothing about this solution/cannot use another port, have no idea about this thread.

 

[guest2013-1]

Hi Gents

My apologies for not answering this sooner, I have been in meetings all morning

We have indeed started trialling this as of this morning. It has only been implemented on a small selection of ip blocks, not network wide, while we assess the impact. The redirection is only on port 25 and is very much in keeping with the type of strategy that almost every ISP is forced to have in place these days to combat the 'zombie traffic' which results in some serious blacklisting headaches.

AcidRazor if this caused you any inconvenience please accept my apology for this. You are still able to send directly to your own server using secure smtp ports, or alternatively if you send a PM to MWEB Operations referring to this conversation with the details of your email provider we can look at putting an exception in place for you.

The only inconvenience was not knowing about the possible change. I like to be informed of things like this so that I don't try and debug/call my data center and log tickets to support which wasn't necessary. Luckily I've been on the internet long enough to know when something like this happens. Please NB my reply to Astroturf (below) so that you could get an idea of the impact this may cause for people who know WTF they're doing when it comes to email/spam/hosting.

I have no problem with MWEB relaying SMTP/pop. In all the years with them we have never had a virus come in via email (many have tried though).

I run pure message anyway but so far it has not been needed.

It's not a question of receiving virus attacks via e-mail as much as your address being used to SPOOF a "valid" email address sending e-mail virus out into the internet. The way MWEB implements this relay requires you to add their mail server as a valid mail server in your SPF records in your DNS settings. Without prior notification of these changes, the SPF settings on your DNS will automatically disqualify any outbound e-mail you send out legitimately since the outgoing SMTP is not your own anymore. This causes quite a bit of frustration, I promise you. However, if notified, it's quite easy to change the SPF records in the DNS to allow for this.

The reason for SPF records is to tell other mail servers not to accept email from anywhere else except a specific email server (or array of email servers). This means that your mom won't get an email spoofed by someone else to make it look like you sent her the virus. The administrators at MWEB (at the NOC) should know this.

Err because he/she did not answer what the OP was asking!
Because he/she then went on to assume facts there were not facts.
Because he/she then basically told the OP he needs to wake up and modify his services now when clearly MWEB have made a conflicting change.
Lets say our OP does use another port to get around this problem, sure it will work for him , he shouldn't have to do it, but what about the other MWEB users that know nothing about this solution/cannot use another port, have no idea about this thread.

Port 587 is safe to use in any application, any mail server that hasn't been setup with that port including 25 for legitimate outbound email's does not comply with RFC standards, and not everyone can afford SSL so port 465 is usually out of the question. Thanks for highlighting my original question. and for MWEB to respond on this.

*edit* I just hope MWEB doesn't start intercepting 587 as well, else I'd have to look for a different ISP

 

[sin_x]

Err because he/she did not answer what the OP was asking!
Because he/she then went on to assume facts there were not facts.
Because he/she then basically told the OP he needs to wake up and modify his services now when clearly MWEB have made a conflicting change.
Lets say our OP does use another port to get around this problem, sure it will work for him , he shouldn't have to do it, but what about the other MWEB users that know nothing about this solution/cannot use another port, have no idea about this thread.

Oh right, I forgot that you are only allowed to post on this forum if you are answering OP. How come you posted then?
The technical solution given was viable and correct. How does that make a person a dumbass?

 

[daffy]

You _should_ me using Port 587, regardless of your ISPs port 25 blocking practices.

25 is for MTA to MTA
587 is for MUA to MTA

 

[bboy]

Oh right, I forgot that you are only allowed to post on this forum if you are answering OP. How come you posted then?
The technical solution given was viable and correct. How does that make a person a dumbass?

Did the person answer any of the OP's questions?
Did the person provide the OP with any additional info the OP didn't know?
Did the person give him attitude?

 

[SabreWolfy]

...
Having said that, intercepting mails that I send or receive, according to me and as far as I know, is a direct infringement to my right to privacy.
...

But your ISP can see all unencrypted traffic anyway, including incoming and outgoing email.

 

[MWEBHelp]

My email accounts are linked to my website. This interception hasn't affected me yet, but it is good to know that you can put an exception in place. I regularly use WebAfrica, MWeb, iBurst, and MTN 3G from my laptop at different locations. I already have to change smtp server whenever I'm using iBurst. It would be a right royal pain in the butt having to change smtp server settings every time I use a different ISP.

Hi Gatecrasher

You can still use the secure submission port 587 to communicate directly with any off network smtp server. This should work on any RFC compliant smtp server - you could also enable authentication when using those servers if it is supported.

 

[daffy]

Having said that, intercepting mails that I send or receive, according to me and as far as I know, is a direct infringement to my right to privacy.

Next you'll be saying that shaping traffic based on source or destination port is an invasion of your privacy, because they're looking into the contents of the packet header...

There's no human there, its automated, and I seriously doubt that they're storing the contents of your emails so the CEO can print them out and read them during his morning movement.

 

[sin_x]

Did the person answer any of the OP's questions?
Did the person provide the OP with any additional info the OP didn't know?
Did the person give him attitude?

The person gave a technically correct workaround to the problem. The OP did not specify that he had already resolved the issue, but now that information is there for all to see. This means that someone else who possibly didn't know how to fix the problem now knows where to start looking.

So to answer your questions:
Did the person answer the question? Actually the OP pretty much answered his own question. the "person" gave an additional opinion regarding SPF, as well as a workaround.

Did the person give additional info that OP didn't know? What is the this? a call-centre? It's a public forum where everyone can give an opinion.

Did the person give attitude? The person responded in kind. See post #3 to see where the attitude started.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Hi Gatecrasher

You can still use the secure submission port 587 to communicate directly with any off network smtp server. This should work on any RFC compliant smtp server - you could also enable authentication when using those servers if it is supported.

Thanks for that. It didn't work when I tried changing the port in Outlook. I've sent a support ticket to my hosting company.

 

[guest2013-1]

Next you'll be saying that shaping traffic based on source or destination port is an invasion of your privacy, because they're looking into the contents of the packet header...

There's no human there, its automated, and I seriously doubt that they're storing the contents of your emails so the CEO can print them out and read them during his morning movement.

You'd be surprised & yes. I agree there should be no shaping at all solely for this reason as well. Why sell me capped bandwidth and then dictate which services have higher priority than others anyway? But that's a whole can of worms already been flogged to death elsewhere in these forums.

 

[daffy]

You'd be surprised & yes. I agree there should be no shaping at all solely for this reason as well. Why sell me capped bandwidth and then dictate which services have higher priority than others anyway? But that's a whole can of worms already been flogged to death elsewhere in these forums.

That wasn't the point I was arguing...

 

[guest2013-1]

The person gave a technically correct workaround to the problem. The OP did not specify that he had already resolved the issue, but now that information is there for all to see. This means that someone else who possibly didn't know how to fix the problem now knows where to start looking.

So to answer your questions:
Did the person answer the question? Actually the OP pretty much answered his own question. the "person" gave an additional opinion regarding SPF, as well as a workaround.

Did the person give additional info that OP didn't know? What is the this? a call-centre? It's a public forum where everyone can give an opinion.

Did the person give attitude? The person responded in kind. See post #3 to see where the attitude started.

I'm sure you can read. We won't be here discussing this if you couldn't. So I point you to the question. I only felt it was necessary explaining my situation a bit further so that when MWEB (or someone else) could answer me, that they didn't ask any stupid questions or ask me to pm them for more information. It's called being thorough.

Everyone can post whatever the **** they want on the internet. I just feel it changes the topic slightly from "Britney Spears is a whore" to "Panda's don't like to ****" pretty quickly and has no bearing on the original question being asked, especially when you consider MWEB support staff trying to answer or take away constructive criticism due to this issue. So I felt I had to keep things on topic. If you'd like to read attitude into anything I said, that's your problem.

And please remember, fighting on the internet is like winning the special Olympics, you may be right, but you're still a retard.

 

[guest2013-1]

That wasn't the point I was arguing...

Why do you feel the need to argue? I'm sure you know loads of people that could tell you "You're right, I'm wrong, you're so awesome" all day everyday. I suggest you phone them instead of wasting my time then.

 

[daffy]

Why do you feel the need to argue? I'm sure you know loads of people that could tell you "You're right, I'm wrong, you're so awesome" all day everyday. I suggest you phone them instead of wasting my time then.

arguing/debating. Whatever. ******.

 

[Veneficus]

tested from my home line and my access is not restricted on port
maybe it is specific to where you are going

 

[7th day adventist church]

My goodness. Such hostility around these parts. Is everyone fighting for 1st place at the jerk awards?

also,

tested from my home line and my access is not restricted on port
maybe it is specific to where you are going

The MWEB rep did respond saying it was only done to a few select blocks of IPs. Probably the main ones causing issues.