--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0000, Colin J. Raven wrote:
> OK, can we now please return to the subject of the initial post?

Thankfully, yes.

> Ian;
> Did this happen more than once?

This happened a second time when sending an e-mail through a non-Verizon
SMTP server with the error message I received back saying that=20
'netdaemon.scraemon.org' could not be resolved.  I have since changed
the From: on the envelope to have 'scraemon.org' as the address, rather
than 'netdaemon.scraemon.org'.  I have not recieved any bounced messages
since then.  I will add, however, that I made this change fairly recently.

> Can you send more email through whatever Verizon SMTP server generated
> the original error and see if the phenomenon happens again? If so, can
> you please post the message - in its entirety, including headers - so
> that we can take a look and begin running down the cause.

I just sent a follow up e-mail to someone with a 'verizon.net' address, and
have not received a bounced e-mail back with an error message.  If/when I
get one within the next few hours, I'll post it to this thread.  If it
occurs later, I'll start a new thread with a subject that better reflects
this new issue. =20

>=20
> Orthoganally - Verizon is known for odd and inconsistent behavior
> concerning email traffic originating from residential DSL IP
> blocks...their own IP blocks and also those of others. When I had
> Verizon DSL in New York it wasn't an issue, because DSL had only just
> been introduced to the NY market and they weren't 'settled in' yet as
> far as their head end stuff was concerned (methinks...I have no factual
> data to support this contention, but it seems logical) So I sent and
> received whatever the heck I liked without impediment. I was to find
> that only a few months after I moved away the landscape changed and
> continued to do so until it became the mess it is now.
>=20
> Then we have the issue of *what* their mail servers consider spam and
> *what* measures they have in place to deal with it...and there's the
> great mystery. Verizon has been mentioned *innumerable* times on various
> lists as rejecting/blocking/bouncing/jailing mail from their own
> susbcribers - and others as said above - for no good reason. Worse,
> there seems to be no redress of grievance in order to get your problem
> resolved once you encounter a difficulty with mail traffic.

I moved my service from Verizon to Speakeasy because they told me that
running a server of any sort with their DSL service was against their terms
of service.  I have had nothing but success ever since.  For my needs,
Verizon wasn't the answer, but for someone who just wants a high speed
connection at a good price, it very well may be.

Many thanks to all for the assistance in tracking down the cause of this is=
sue.

--=20
Ian P. Thomas

--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBmh85/mRPbSsw8zYRAqU/AKDAZt81cFWK81wcKIec6NxBYCBPrQCgtBMl
IDrFr5c2ewEwAhTjgq5aiTI=
=+xnT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--