Bounce History for [EMAIL PROTECTED] < Back to My Email Preferences Account Status: Normal Total Bounces: 1 Reactivation Requests Sent: 1 Weekly Bounce Summary Week of Bounced messages 10/21/2006 1
Recent Bounced Messages Most recent messages Response Date Type of message sent Date Result 10/31/2006 Auto Reactivation request 10/31/2006 Reactivation 10/23/2006 cfwebstore5 msg #6848 10/23/2006 Hard Bounce Last Bounced Message Remote host said: 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [0] - mta251.mail.mud.yahoo.com [BODY] Even yahoo doesn't know it's own users. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Barnes Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages My apologies to everyone for the length of my response . . . I would concur with both John and Barbara in this situation. Remember, Yahoo = SBC now = AT&T and they just consolidated all of their internet services into a single data center (a few weeks back). I would suggest that this is a hardware problem that won't become much better as they undercut the actual cost of providing services in their attempts to drive all of the other DSL and hosting providers out of business. <rant> Reality: In Illinois, they WHOLESALE the cost of a 2 wire copper circuit to their competition for about $22.00 - just for the circuit between the CO and the competition's customer. Their basic rate, for stripped down service, with dial tone, to residential customers only goes for about $12.00 plus change and taxes and all of the other "federally authorized charges" they tack on in the name of additional profit centers. When they were going to implement fiber to-the-door in Illinois the Illinois Commerce Commission [ICC], the oversight group in the State of Illinois that is so firmly in bed with the utility companies actually took a stand and told them they HAD to provide bandwidth to their competitors over the same fiber, the same way they are mandated to provide access to their competition over copper - for a [there's no such thing as] reasonable fee. They screamed bloody murder, stating that it would bankrupt them and refused to commit to carrying the competition over the fiber so the ICC told them they either carried the competition over the fiber of they would be fined. The resolve was to suspend the installation of fiber to the door. When SBC took over what was Ameritech, formerly Illinois Bell under the Bell System, they also promised they "would not lay off any of the existing employees or close any of the service centers in Illinois." That was all BS, and they immediately laid off more than 7,500 employees; gutted the central offices of the ability to do routine maintenance; and, to further ensure that no scheduled maintenance would be done, removed all of the BSP manuals [Bell System Practices - the manuals that told employees how to do everything, right down to the which screwdriver to use on what equipment and what side cutters and strippers to use with which wire sizes]. In Virginia, and several other states, mostly Verizon territory, and parts of Texas, they have already implemented fiber to the door, carrying anyone who is an authorized ILEC or CLEC over the same fiber, because the regulatory agencies in those states told them they had no choice - they were told they are basically a vehicle for the delivery of voice and data and, until there is a viable option of other providers who can use the rights of way, then they MUST, in no uncertain terms, carry the competition. What is all amounts to is the fact that Ed Whitacre, the current president of AT&T wants to put back together the old Bell System by completing the merger of Bell South. After that, all that's left to complete the system is the purchase of the RBOC that services the northwest part of the US and he will have succeeded, albeit without Bell Labs [now Lucent / Alcatel] and Western Electric - long ago disbanded. Unfortunately for consumers, the "new AT&T" will never be the same as the original Bell System because it's all about making it as profitable as possible for the stockholders In summary, I predict the situation will only become far worse before it becomes better. In the interest of full disclosure: I am a major stockholder, owning stock in most of the RBOCS, and subsequently AT&T - some purchased, some inherited from family members who made what was once a smart investment; and don't like how Whitacre is running without a throttle, hell-bent on ruining the telecommunications structure of the Country, as he does away with competition and ruins the level of service capable of being provided to the American people. In Europe, DSL service is much faster, much less expensive, and much more widely available. In the US, what is now AT&T, along with unnecessary regulation on the part of the FCC. The Communications Act of 1935, even with the updates provided by the revisions provided in the revisions of 1996 [http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html], still falls far short of what it should be. Not an effort to promote what Whitacre is doing with AT&T, but for an interesting read, albeit slanted towards the old Bell System, find a copy of the now out-of-print "The Rape of the Bell System" by [http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/rapeofmabell.htm]. It will give you some real insight into the hows and whys of what was once the largest monopoly in the world, along with an excellent history of how a once top-notch system, was dismantled by the Justice Department beginning in the mid 50's. Did it need to be dismantled? Yes, competition was sorely needed, but given the technology at the time, there was nothing the then Bell System couldn't do when it came to telecommunications, and when they did it, they did it RIGHT; no cost cutting, no trying to save money by skimping on the equipment required to develop and complete a project. What we need to do now is to ensure that whomever the provider is that manages the paths that carry the data and voice signals [converging ever more on a daily basis] to our homes and businesses is neutral in their approach to that effort and does not put their own megalopolistic agenda ahead of the good of both business and the Country. If Whitacre prevails in "re-assembling" the Bell System, then lets make certain that he's regulated in a manner that will insure both good service to their customers and good service to the ILECs who rely on the local operating companies to provide interconnect, ie: last mile service, between the provider and the customer. </rant> Bruce Barnes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barbara ONeal Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages >This appears to be a very random problem with no solid pattern. I agree. Sometimes my emails get through faster other times takes awhile and others not at all. Here is where Yahoo has info concerning the domain keys http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys There are other mail server software companies that have already come on board to make it easy to create domain keys Like Sendmail and Merak -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T (Lists) Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages I have a personal account on yahoo that I receive about 35 emails per day that are then forwarded to my personal domain on my Imail server. Of those, I only found that 1 of those emails to my yahoo account was using DK yet all were processed on time except for 1 that appears to have been delayed about 30 hours from when the sending server time stamped it to when yahoo processed it. This appears to be a very random problem with no solid pattern. John T eServices For You "Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882) > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Imail_Forum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barbara ONeal > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > Problem is it happens intermittently. > > I can sometimes send a message to my yahoo account and other times not. > > What I was trying to say is you have a better chance if you have a > domain key than not. > > However, be that as it may. Yahoo has implemented a delay in delivery > for mail coming into their system. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matrosity Hosting > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > I sent a test message to my own yahoo account and it arrived so the > domain key requirement doesn't appear to be true. > > Bill Foresman > Matrosity Hosting > www.matrosity.com > 850.656.2644 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barbara > ONeal > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > Yes filled that one out too. > > What I am finding is that yahoo has implemented the Domain-Key rule. Right > now I have found that Sendmail and Merak have both implemented this in their > software settings. What I want to know is Ipswitch going to do the same? > > I can't seem to figure out how to implement yet lots of stuff to look > at, > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matrosity Hosting > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:56 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > Hhhmmm, mine had a url in the error but here you go: > > http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/mail/cgi_defer > > Bill Foresman > Matrosity Hosting > www.matrosity.com > 850.656.2644 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barbara > ONeal > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > Bill the 451 errors do not refer to any forms. > > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) [x] using source IP > for mail.centricweb.net [63.246.3.135] > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) Info - Found > yahoo.com in DNS Cache > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) 451 Message > temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) Connection returned > error - skipping 4.79.181.135 451 Message temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) [x] using source IP > for mail.centricweb.net [63.246.3.135] > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) 451 Message > temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) Connection returned > error - skipping 4.79.181.15 451 Message temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) [x] using source IP > for mail.centricweb.net [63.246.3.135] > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) 451 Message > temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) Connection returned > error - skipping 67.28.113.74 451 Message temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) [x] using source IP > for mail.centricweb.net [63.246.3.135] > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) 451 Message > temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) Connection returned > error - skipping 66.196.97.250 451 Message temporarily deferred - 4.16.50 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) [x] using source IP > for mail.centricweb.net [63.246.3.135] > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) Info - Adding > yahoo.com to temporary skip list > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) requeuing > e:\IMail\spool\Q98b800000de05f1e.FWD R0 T1 > 20061030 001624 127.0.0.1 SMTP (98b800000de05f1e) finished > e:\IMail\spool\Q98b800000de05f1e.FWD status=3 > > This link I found on my own. > > http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/mail/cgi_defer?from_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp% > 2Eyahoo%2Ecom%2Fhelp%2Fus%2Fmail%2Fdefer%2Fdefer%2D03%2Ehtml > > Along with this one. http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/mail/cgi_access I > have filled them out but not much help they don't even respond. > > And no I do not allow relay, We don't allow spam and comply with everything > at this point except for the new item they are working on which is > domain keys. Stil not sure how to veryify that as a hosting company. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matrosity Hosting > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > Fill out the form that is in your logs referring to the 451 error. It takes > a few days but they'll get it fixed. > > > Bill Foresman > Matrosity Hosting > www.matrosity.com > 850.656.2644 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Yahoo Delaying Messages > > > > My users are getting disturbed and I don't know what to tell them. > > You tell them that the Yahoo problem has been reported widely over the past > few weeks, and the solution rests entirely with yahoo. > > Len > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
