On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
: This was strictly for inbound email to ATT's corporate mail servers at att.com,
: which were getting pounded with much more spam than usual.
We all are. I certainly hope the block is temporary so that it is indeed
possible to
ATT STATEMENT - CURRENT SPAM ATTACK - 10/22/03
ATT and a number of other large companies have seen a marked
increase in the amount of incoming SPAM in recent days. A team of
experts that includes members from ATT Labs, Network Services,
and Corporate Security has implemented a
At 2:43 PM -0400 10/22/03, Steve Bellovin wrote:
Customers who received e-mail bulletins from ATT Monday and Tuesday
requesting specific information are advised to disregard those
messages. They were inadvertently sent out in error and we apologize
for any confusion or inconvenience they may have
Some people have been wondering if my statement was authentic,
authorized, etc. That's a fair question. I've pgp-signed this copy
of it; my public key is available via my Web page and via key servers
around the net. See http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3097171
for a news story
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Steve Bellovin wrote:
ATT STATEMENT - CURRENT SPAM ATTACK - 10/22/03
See similar statements from other service providers such as Telstra (which
gave its subscribers a $25 million service credit) in Australia and
Sympatico in Canada.
Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
[What appears to be official statements]
Bill Stewart
Usual-disclaimer: this is my opinion, not ATT's official statements.
One of us does not understand.
- Forwarded message -
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (added by
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.102 (B2.12; Q2.03)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003
This is apparently already in place, as it explains why all of my ATT
emails bounced
today.
I guess it they don't want any _new_ customers.
On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 05:24 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
- Forwarded message -
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, 2003-10-21 at 17:24 AST, Jeff Wasilko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Forwarded message -
What ATT is asking is for you to help ATT to restrict incoming mail
to just our known and trusted sources (e.g., business partners, clients
and customers). Therefore, we need to know
Wow, this sounds like a pretty extreme shotgun approach. (or is it April
1st somewhere). Is ATT going to make this whitelist publicly available
? Perhaps if there was some global white list that everyone could consult
against, it might be a little more useable. Still, what do you do about
Here is my experience (names are changed to protect...) :
Failed to deliver to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
SMTP module(domain att.com) reports:
message text rejected by ckmsi2.att.com:
550 5.7.1 Your message was rejected as possible spam. Please call your
ATT contact. [3]
Failed to deliver to '[EMAIL
I'm not sure whether shadenfreude is the right word, however, it seems that,
regarding a previous conversation about cutting off users infected with viruses,
ATT has decided that putting a bit of stick about is the right thing to do.
It will be very interesting to see how this works out, as
Message -
From: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Tancsa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Heads-up: ATT apparently going to whitelist-only inbound mail
Here is my experience (names are changed to protect...) :
Failed
Jeff Wasilko wrote:
What ATT is asking is for you to help ATT to restrict incoming mail
to just our known and trusted sources (e.g., business partners, clients
and customers). Therefore, we need to know which IP address(es) are
used by your outbound e-mail service so we can selectively
14 matches
Mail list logo
