one possible solution to outlook "unable to connect to server" error

[Bbm7b5]

For anyone getting the "unable to connect to server" error message ...

By default, SBC DSL does not allow sending mail through smtp servers
other than their own because they block port 25.

A search of these groups and the web did not produce much reference to
port 25 blocking as being the possible problem.

I messed around with settings, different servers, different clueless
support lines, and different email clients for hours. SBC phone
support did not once mention that port 25 blocking could be the
problem; I finally discovered that on my own, **buried in their very
own online docs**!

With that knowledge, instead of filling out the silly "request to
unblock" form they want you to use and waiting for god knows how long,
I went straight to their online support chat thingie and asked to
remove the block. After some resistance and trying to get me to try
all the things I've already tried millions of times, I finally got the
guy to "just remove the f** block, dude!" Boom, sending mail through
my non-sbc mail server now works normally. I also had to power off/on
my DSL modem for it to take effect.

I hope this post comes up in some poor schmuck's search and saves them
the agony and wasted precious time I experienced.

Computers Suck
Steve, programmer / sys admin

 

[Vanguard]

For anyone getting the "unable to connect to server" error message ...

By default, SBC DSL does not allow sending mail through smtp servers
other than their own because they block port 25.

A search of these groups and the web did not produce much reference to
port 25 blocking as being the possible problem.

Gee, I had 34 all by myself (there are probably more using other search
parameters):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+...:microsoft.public.*+author:vanguard&scoring=d
(or http://snipurl.com/l01l)

I remember first reading about this just over a year ago, so I'm sure it
wasn't brand new and something that was known to be happening while more and
more ISPs decide to lockdown their mail servers to avoid spam and constrict
their infected users. Some ISPs, like mine, will kill off-domain port 25
traffic when that traffic gets too huge or there are complaints of spam
coming from that [infected] user; i.e., off-domain port 25 traffic is
allowed, by default, until you abuse it. For personal accounts, the default
should be to block off-domain port 25 traffic (and other common SMTP ports,
like 463 for SSL connects) unless the user asks for permission upon which a
monitor keeps track of their off-domain usage (and the user puts themself
into a higher risk category of getting their account killed if they abuse
the higher quotas permitted with an off-domain port 25 allowed account;
i.e., you are more likely to get your account killed if you ask and get
permission to send off-domain SMTP traffic).

Blocking of off-domain SMTP traffic is not new. For personal accounts,
there is no need to be using an off-domain SMTP server. You can use the
on-domain SMTP server regardless of which off-domain or on-domain POP3
servers that you use. As mentioned above, allowing off-domain SMTP access,
if allowed at all, should be by permission and require even closer
monitoring of that account and put that account at higher risk of immediate
termination. A business may have a need for off-domain SMTP access to
wherever they subscribe to some e-mail service (so a business should use a
business account for larger quotas and few restrictions), but personal users
don't *need* off-domain access to SMTP servers (want is not the same as
need). You can put whatever e-mail address you want into your mail because
that is *data* in your message, so you can use your on-domain SMTP server
but specify an off-domain From and/or Reply-To headers.

ISPs *SHOULD* block off-domain SMTP traffic for personal accounts! There
are too many boob users out there that haven't a clue that their host is
infected or may even want to deliberately spew spam and they want to hide by
abusing someone else's SMTP server (that is not properly configured to
require authentication or restrict its access only to customers on THAT
domain). The schmuck at SBC should be publicly spanked for giving you
off-domain SMTP access for a personal account since I doubt SBC puts
anything in place to more closely monitor your account after getting such
permission.

 

[Vanguard]

A search of these groups and the web did not produce much reference to
port 25 blocking as being the possible problem.

<snip>

Check the first one. It relates to you. Others give similar explanation
and reasons for blocking off-domain SMTP traffic, especially for *personal*
(aka residential) accounts.

http://www.commercestreet.com/Blocking_Port_25.htm
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/pop/pop-38.html

http://www.postcastserver.com/help/Port_25_Blocking.aspx
http://www.aota.net/Troubleshooting/port25.php4
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=ISP Spam Issues#133
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdewk/is_200406/ai_ziff129473

http://www.google.com/search?q=+block++"port+25"++SMTP++spam

 

[Bbm7b5]

Tks for taking time to reply Vanguard, but reading down a few lines
you'll see my reason for posting was to share my solution and the
experience I had with SBC.

As for

Gee, I had 34 all by myself (there are probably more using other search

parameters):

Well Gee, I knew someone would say that. I did a lot of searches, I'm
no dumbbell, really, and for what ever reason I found little that
suggested "error number: 0x800cc0e" may be caused by port blocking.

No matter, I just hope my post will help someone else, because these
groups have saved my butt many a time and I need to give back more than
I have been.

Happy Holiday

 

[Bbm7b5]

Before someone has a cow ... that should be "error number 0x800ccc0e"

Feh.