Re: txt.att.net outage?

It appears that Simmons, Jay via NANOG said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >This may be the issue Sorry, but no. >Here are some details on this Government protocol implemented by all Telecom >Carriers. > >Why it is being done? To support FCC mandate for STIR/SHAKEN, an industry set >of rules designed to

RE: txt.att.net outage?

they get as a result)? Provide a means to mitigate/eliminate illegally spoofed calls from RoboCallers. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Tim Burke Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:21 AM To: Dan Walters ; nanog@nanog.org list Subject: Re: txt.att.net outage? EXTERNAL EMAIL FWIW, AT does not suggest

Re: txt.att.net outage?

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 9:15 AM William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:09 PM Dan Walters via NANOG > wrote: > > Know this is a longshot, any chance anyone from the txt.att.net domain > might be able to help us with what we believe is a blacklist block or > possibly an outage? > > We

Re: txt.att.net outage?

txt.att.net is returning MX records and those machines don't have port 444 open... Wouldn't you want to be sending something like a SNPP message instead? It's a much less convoluted delivery process and is almost real-time (no queuing). I guess it's been a decade or so

Re: txt.att.net outage?

FWIW, AT does not suggest using the txt.att.net email for anything critical. In a previous role I handled public safety CAD, and AT (and Verizon, if I remember correctly) made it very clear that if you want to be able to send anything other than a miniscule volume of texts through the

Re: txt.att.net outage?

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:09 PM Dan Walters via NANOG wrote: > Know this is a longshot, any chance anyone from the txt.att.net domain might > be able to help us with what we believe is a blacklist block or possibly an > outage? > We deal with 911 cad dispatching and is affecting first