SBC Internet and ISDN for big business

[Don Erickson]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Patrick M wrote:

> I added a ISDN/Voice question too?

I don't understand what this sentence means.

> I don't do checks on connectivity. I just like the idea that if our text to 
> email gateway can get out directly to the ISP's relay I know the connection 
> is up.  If I run my own email gateway, I have to make sure my staff checks the 
> email and does not just assume the message went.

Okay, but you STILL have no way of knowing if the message actually did go, 
only that it was accepted by the relay.  If the message gets delayed it 
will still be hours before the mail server sends a 'message delayed will 
keep trying' message.  On the other hand, if you run your own server you 
can just check the logs to see that the receiving mailserver accepted it, 
and when.  Somebody pointed this out a couple of days ago, when kclug 
bounced his post.

> Even then it can sit in the 
> queue for several hours before it says it failed but will keep trying. I 
> suppose I can adjust it.

You can adjust your server, but not your isp's.  Alternately, if you've 
got two upstream providers anyway,  there's a near zero chance that both 
are down at once.

> I also have gotten used to mail bagging. I can take the server down and know 
> the messages will be available immediately when I bring it back up. I know 
> the foreign computer is supposed to keep trying, but there will be more of a 
> delay. And it can add to back flow spam if my computer rejects it after the 
> mail relay accepted it.

Yep, I'm definitely a believer in rejecting spam at the server.  The 
envelope sender and return path are nearly always bogus on spam, so 
accepting and THEN bouncing spam to postmaster just makes things worse. 
Between SPF and spamassassin utilizing razor2 and a hack in the spf-milter 
to reject emails claiming to come from my own domain (this is low-hanging 
fruit, but it's amazing how many spam connections start with "HELO, I'm 
your domain or your IP address"), my mail server rejects nearly all of 
spam at the initial connection.  Aside from bandwidth savings, this also 
has the advantage that if the email WAS legit, the sender knows what 
happened immediately and can take appropriate action.

But, that said, if you have a system that works for you and that everyone 
is happy with, you should probably keep it.

> As for slowdown, Full t-1 should be about the same download as ADSL but it 
> will be two way right? Heck they may be running it as SDSL for all I know.
>
> My current connection is:
> UUNET 384 sdsl
> &
> sbc 256/784 (256/1.5?)adsl I think ...we upgraded to static IP and higher 
> upload speed
> We mostly do VPN In and out, email, and some Web stuff our page and surfing. 
> I also figured the T-1/Frac-T would be less over subscribed.

DSL, in theory, can't be oversubscribed.  A utility called nload can show 
you your bandwidth in and out, if you're interested.  Filling the upload 
pipe slows the download and vice versa on DSL.  This goes against my grasp 
of how DSL is supposed to work, so obviously my grasp is flawed.

> We also have a quote from NuVox and ATT.... how  do we like them? NuVox talks 
> up their spam block.

Yeah, so does AOL.

So, what do these prices look like?

Regards,

-Don