John Bittenbender wrote:
We don't provide email services to our customers.
Sure you do. When I was a VZW customer, I had a vtext.com email address and
a few aliases. (BTW, you should provide better spam filtering to your
customers who use SMS, but that's something we can talk about offli
At 10:37 AM +0200 2005-06-02, Niels Bakker wrote:
Failure to do so should be considered a corporate statement that
you implicitly condone any and all such activities that occur on
your networks.
Oooh, threatening, Mr Knowles!
Threatening? No, I don't think so. Something
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Knowles) [Thu 02 Jun 2005, 06:33 CEST]:
You should most definitely be actively participating in the
appropriate forums.
Failure to do so should be considered a corporate statement that
you implicitly condone any and all such activities that occur on your
networks.
At 7:21 PM -0700 2005-06-01, John Bittenbender wrote:
We don't provide email services to our customers. We are merely a
wireless ISP generally used as their secondary connection to use while
the customer is mobile. Another large portion of our client base are
enterprises and public servi
On 6/1/05, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
> > VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
> > and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.
>
> Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >> Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
> >>
> >> (63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
> >> 'verizon.net'
> >> and VZ still relayed it)
> >
> > keep in mind
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
(63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)
keep in mind I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that
verizon is using som
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > (As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
> > relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
> > in place for very specific reasons,
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
the recipient hasn't blocked VZ's
on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> (As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
> relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
> in place for very specific reasons, and aren't the only indicator of
> spam. Other DNSBLs
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:46:01PM -, John Levine wrote:
> VZW recently confirmed that their mail system is separate from VZ's,
> and whatever mistakes they may make, they're not VZ's.
Okay, fine -- and a look at DNS seems to back this up (unless I'm
missing something). And I've no desire to
On 31/05/05, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> > It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
>
> Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
> and mail filters -- as e
>On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
>> It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
>
>Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
>and mail filters -- as evidenced by their ongoing decision to deliberately
>provide an
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
Verizon is hopelessly clueless when it comes to mail system operations
and mail filters -- as evidenced by their ongoing decision to deliberately
provide anonymiz
Mad props out to Mr. John Bittenbender who got me in contact with
someone at VZW who was quick and helpful getting this fixed.
Apparently, VZW did decide that our IAP as a whole originated too
much spam and just blocked the whole thing. I don't know if they
made their filters more precise or whi
> They're different companies. I'm pretty sure they have
> different server farms and corporate policies. Verizon owns
> 100% of Verizon.net and only 55% of Verizon Wireless.
When I left Verizon.net abuse/security last year they were NOT sharing mail
systems/resources or
anti-spam measures with
Following up to my own post
I'm going to forward this to an acquaintance I have at Verizon.net and
see what he says.
Mail's been sent. Don't know how busy my friend is, but he should be able to
get back to me relatively quickly.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4
Crist Clark wrote:
It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters.
Verizon.net's blocking of Europe, Asia, Africa... well, everything but
North America has made some headlines and even some lawsuits. Anyone
know if VerizonWireless.com and Verizon.net are independent operatio
18 matches
Mail list logo
