Now the motherfuckers at Comcast are blocking port 110!!!!
am 14.08.2007 20:55:20 von unknownPost removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On 14-Aug-2007, Juergen Nieveler
> Borked Pseudo Mailed
>
> > Now those motherfuckers are Comcast are blocking outgoing
> > calls to port 110. I get my Email through a service a 1 and 1
> > services in Germany, and find I cannot get through unless I
> > sign on to my subscription anonymity service. Why in the HELL
> > would they want to block outside mail services on port 110.
>
> IIRC 1&1 (unlike Web.de, their sister company) don't allow POP3-SSL on
> port 995. Is using IMAP an option for you?
I had that same problem with Earthlink (I use 1and1 also). I called them
(Earthlink) and got them to unblock it for me.
Squeaky wheel and all that.
--
We apologize for the inconvenience
In message <13c48u8idslrl9e@corp.supernews.com> "ArtDent"
>I had that same problem with Earthlink (I use 1and1 also). I called them
>(Earthlink) and got them to unblock it for me.
>Squeaky wheel and all that.
Any clue why they would block 110?
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
In article
spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
> In message <13c48u8idslrl9e@corp.supernews.com> "ArtDent"
>
>
> >I had that same problem with Earthlink (I use 1and1 also). I called them
> >(Earthlink) and got them to unblock it for me.
> >Squeaky wheel and all that.
>
> Any clue why they would block 110?
Maybe it's a means to force people to use the El servers and to keep
people from pulling infected email from other servers?
Maybe the were trying to block external access to their POP servers and
screwed up and blocked in/out access at the same time?
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On 14-Aug-2007, DevilsPGD
> Any clue why they would block 110?
Spambots
--
I am not a complete idiot.
Parts are missing.
ArtDent
> On 14-Aug-2007, DevilsPGD
>> Any clue why they would block 110?
>
> Spambots
Why would spambots care about POP3 servers?
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Juergen Nieveler
> Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
>>>> Any clue why they would block 110?
>>>
>>> Spambots
>>
>> Why would spambots care about POP3 servers?
>
> Spambots don't. Clueless ISPs do - after all, Spambots are
> Email-related, POP3 is Email-related, so blocking POP3 will block the
> spambots.
You owe my table a new edge.
cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> Spambots don't. Clueless ISPs do - after all, Spambots are
> Email-related, POP3 is Email-related, so blocking POP3 will block the
> spambots.
right - gmail is also mail related - so they should also block port 80
and while they're at it:
blocking dns 53 would _definitely_ stop all this spam nonsense.
why didn't they think of that earlier ???
M