Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Taxi_Driver on 02 September 2009, 15:11:02
-
When im using my 3G dongle, when i try to send email from outlook, i get the following error....
Task 'pop.tiscali.co.uk - Sending' reported error (0x800CCC6F) : 'Your outgoing (SMTP) e-mail server has reported an internal error. If you continue to receive this message, contact your server administrator or Internet service provider (ISP). The server responded: 554 Sorry, your non-local IP address (212.183.132.40) is not allowed to send email via me.'
I think the 212..... addy must be vodoo's gateway..
Any ideas if i can get around this?
Cheers
-
No.
-
No.
Good answer AA ::) ;D
-
You could try.......no that wouldn't work, but then......no still wouldn't work!
-
Your e-mail provider (Tiscali?) has blocked connections to their SMTP server for sending mail from users who are not connected through their network (sensibly).
Whilst your machine is configured to send mail exactly as it would from your tiscali connection, it's not allocated an IP address that Tiscali recognise as one of their own.
The solution would be to reconfigure to use an SMTP server provided by your 3G service provider, or at least one that isn't as fussy about who it forwards mail from.
Kevin
-
as kev wood says. Or see if your smtp server allows authenticated connections (prove who you are, then allow relay)
-
Some of the providors will support SMTP access to other providors but, you often have to log in via the internet based mail and set it up within prefernces/settings (BT do this).
You then get an email sent to the account which needs verifying (again, login via web mail to the requried email account to do this)
-
Some of the providors will support SMTP access to other providors but, you often have to log in via the internet based mail and set it up within prefernces/settings (BT do this).
You then get an email sent to the account which needs verifying (again, login via web mail to the requried email account to do this)
BT Retail ISPs (other than PlusNet) all use Yahoo Mail platform iirc
-
Thanks for the replies guys :y
I'll have to have a poke around my tiscali webmail to see if there are any settings i can change...
It doesnt work if i just add my username and password to outlook...in the field 'my smtp server requires me to logon'
-
http://www.filesaveas.com/gprs.html
Try using the SMTP server for your 3G provider from that list instead of the Tiscali one Dave.
-
Here's the short answer in plain english....
You are NOT sending an e-mail via Tiscali (or any other ISP) unless you are directly connected to them.
In further plain english....
If you connect via (say) the 3 network, you will have no problem receiving e-mail to your Tiscali account in Outlook....but you won't be sending as you are not actually authenticated on their network.
The same rule applies to all ISP's, has done for years, and there isn't a setting in the world you can modify to change this (your ISP will never give you that much control).
If you want to send e-mail EVERY time when you are connected to the net through whatever connection, then you'll need to sort your own mail server.
-
Here's the short answer in plain english....
You are NOT sending an e-mail via Tiscali (or any other ISP) unless you are directly connected to them.
In further plain english....
If you connect via (say) the 3 network, you will have no problem receiving e-mail to your Tiscali account in Outlook....but you won't be sending as you are not actually authenticated on their network.
The same rule applies to all ISP's, has done for years, and there isn't a setting in the world you can modify to change this (your ISP will never give you that much control).
If you want to send e-mail EVERY time when you are connected to the net through whatever connection, then you'll need to sort your own mail server.
Not entirely true - some ISPs do allow authenticated relay from foreign IPs.
But, you're right, using a non ISP mail server is a cure. Gmail now allow you to use your own domain for the past year or so, and provide POP3/IMAP/SMTP for free if you can't be bothered to set up own mail server.
In all cases, an invalid SPF will probably knacker your chances of ruling the universe though
-
so how does that work with the gay phone then
because the phone downloads and sends email from all accounts inc ntl and hotmail ?
-
so how does that work with the gay phone then
because the phone downloads and sends email from all accounts inc ntl and hotmail ?
VM I seem to recall allow authenticated smtp relay, as does (did) Hotmail.
The fact its a gayPhone makes no difference.
-
http://www.filesaveas.com/gprs.html
Try using the SMTP server for your 3G provider from that list instead of the Tiscali one Dave.
Cheers John
Will give the voodo smtp server a go tomorrow :y
-
Here's the short answer in plain english....
You are NOT sending an e-mail via Tiscali (or any other ISP) unless you are directly connected to them.
In further plain english....
If you connect via (say) the 3 network, you will have no problem receiving e-mail to your Tiscali account in Outlook....but you won't be sending as you are not actually authenticated on their network.
The same rule applies to all ISP's, has done for years, and there isn't a setting in the world you can modify to change this (your ISP will never give you that much control).
If you want to send e-mail EVERY time when you are connected to the net through whatever connection, then you'll need to sort your own mail server.
Not entirely true - some ISPs do allow authenticated relay from foreign IPs.
But, you're right, using a non ISP mail server is a cure. Gmail now allow you to use your own domain for the past year or so, and provide POP3/IMAP/SMTP for free if you can't be bothered to set up own mail server.
In all cases, an invalid SPF will probably knacker your chances of ruling the universe though
Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP :(
-
Not sure about the technical stuff, :-[ but I am with BT and can use my 3dongle to email quite happily. I am even recognised on sites using this, not sure how this is so but is. :)
-
Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP :(
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest TD.
Tiscali are universally recognised as one of the worst providers in the UK, and I wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire.
In fact, I'd choose AOL over Tiscali any day (and believe me, that IS saying something).
-
Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP :(
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest TD.
Tiscali are universally recognised as one of the worst providers in the UK, and I wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire.
In fact, I'd choose AOL over Tiscali any day (and believe me, that IS saying something).
As a wholesale provider, they are well regarded within the industry.
At a consumer level, they could have handled things a little better, particularly around the way they handle heavy users, and their tech support (their 2nd and 3rd lines are not too bad to be honest).
Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere :)
-
Had a butchers on my tiscali webmail.....couldnt find anything that allows mail to be sent from another ISP :(
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest TD.
Tiscali are universally recognised as one of the worst providers in the UK, and I wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire.
In fact, I'd choose AOL over Tiscali any day (and believe me, that IS saying something).
Ive used Tiscsali for quite a few years now and have to say....ive only had one issue with them...which after i got an email addy of a 3rd line technician...and not a 'read the ready made text' polly.....it got sorted quickly....
Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do... ::) ;)
-
Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere :)
Whaddya mean by 'not normal'?
You suggesting I'm nuts or summit? ;D ;D
Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do... ::) ;)
I've never used P2P TD, far too slow for me.
All my downloads come from direct links to servers that can outstrip my download speeds with ease..
-
Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere :)
Whaddya mean by 'not normal'?
You suggesting I'm nuts or summit? ;D ;D
Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do... ::) ;)
I've never used P2P TD, far too slow for me.
All my downloads come from direct links to servers that can outstrip my download speeds with ease..
Whatever method.....its the same thing ;)
-
Whatever method.....its the same thing ;)
Not quite TD.
Tisacali & their ilk will quite happily promise you X amount of bandwidth, but you start pushing that to anywhere remotely near it's limit and you'll be getting the crappy letter.
Bandwidth costs money, and all these "cheap" ISP's that are still relying on BT simply cannot deliver what they promise.
The old adage of "you get what you pay for" applies very much in this example I'm afraid.
-
Generally, Tiscali subscribers are reasonably happy, but 'not normal' users are better looking elsewhere :)
Whaddya mean by 'not normal'?
You suggesting I'm nuts or summit? ;D ;D
Tho however they dont like P2P users that take the urine.....i do use P2P but dont use it like i think you do... ::) ;)
I've never used P2P TD, far too slow for me.
All my downloads come from direct links to servers that can outstrip my download speeds with ease..
For 'normal' for 90% of internet users, less than 100Gb (or thereabouts, dont have current stats here) per YEAR is enough :o
The rest tend to be p2p and nntp users. About a third of these are the mikey takers.
Business practices dictate that you need to dump those very high users, keeping the lower users. Moreso if you are on IPStream connections (every ISP made a right pigs ear of Datastream), as the central costs are unstainable - an 8Mb line maxed out 24/7 will cost the ISP way over £1000 per month for that single subscriber.
LLU can tolerate to an extent as the takeup has been relatively poor (and will remain so as WBC gets rolled out, LLU doesn't sound so fantastic to most consumers), but when capcity starts to get saturated, do you thing they will kill heavy users, or put in extra capacity.......
-
Whatever method.....its the same thing ;)
Not quite TD.
Tisacali & their ilk will quite happily promise you X amount of bandwidth, but you start pushing that to anywhere remotely near it's limit and you'll be getting the crappy letter.
Bandwidth costs money, and all these "cheap" ISP's that are still relying on BT simply cannot deliver what they promise.
The old adage of "you get what you pay for" applies very much in this example I'm afraid.
I agree, you get what you pay for :y
That said....i get 8M download from Tiscali.....for a fiver a month (after taking out £10/month phone line connection)......
I downloaded a 3.1GB file last week in 1hr30mins....not bad :y and i dont get 'crappy letters' ;)
-
For 'normal' for 90% of internet users, less than 100Gb (or thereabouts, dont have current stats here) per YEAR is enough :o
100GB per YEAR?????
Jeez, I can spank that with ease in a day.
Gotta ask J, where did you get that figure from?
LLU can tolerate to an extent as the takeup has been relatively poor (and will remain so as WBC gets rolled out, LLU doesn't sound so fantastic to most consumers), but when capcity starts to get saturated, do you thing they will kill heavy users, or put in extra capacity.......
At the rate LLU is rolling out (BT have only just STARTED doing what others were doing 5 years ago), I reckon the fibre and mini DSLAM's will be in every cab in the UK by the time it gets to the stage where standard ADSL is today.
-
I downloaded a 3.1GB file last week in 1hr30mins....not bad :y and i dont get 'crappy letters' ;)
Do two of them a day, for 30 days.....your crappy letter will be coming first class ;)
PS
A 3.1GB file in 1hr 30 gives you a true download speed of 4Mbits
-
For 'normal' for 90% of internet users, less than 100Gb (or thereabouts, dont have current stats here) per YEAR is enough :o
100GB per YEAR?????
Jeez, I can spank that with ease in a day.
Gotta ask J, where did you get that figure from?
LLU can tolerate to an extent as the takeup has been relatively poor (and will remain so as WBC gets rolled out, LLU doesn't sound so fantastic to most consumers), but when capcity starts to get saturated, do you thing they will kill heavy users, or put in extra capacity.......
At the rate LLU is rolling out (BT have only just STARTED doing what others were doing 5 years ago), I reckon the fibre and mini DSLAM's will be in every cab in the UK by the time it gets to the stage where standard ADSL is today.
Lets just say I get to see such things at work ;)
As to llu, consumers dont understand or care. They like the headline figures. llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.
BT need to step up rollout of FTTC and FTTP, as no llu could ever do that.
-
llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.
Of course the penetration has been bad J...the provider is having to pay for the kit that BT should have had in place 10 years ago.
-
llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.
Of course the penetration has been bad J...the provider is having to pay for the kit that BT should have had in place 10 years ago.
Interesting comment, why should BT have fitted it rather than anyone else? Could additionally argue, why should BT - a private commercial entity - allow other providers to use its kit or its premises or its lines.
The 'regulator' OFTEL/COM has been the biggest barrier to llu anyway, muppets that they are.
-
llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.
Of course the penetration has been bad J...the provider is having to pay for the kit that BT should have had in place 10 years ago.
Interesting comment, why should BT have fitted it rather than anyone else? Could additionally argue, why should BT - a private commercial entity - allow other providers to use its kit or its premises or its lines.
I've always thought the same, but then again..BT ain't exactly putting themselves at the forefront in order to gain customers these days.
As an example of what I mean....I'm just seeing the adverts on telly for BT's "new" 20Mbit home broadband.
If BT don't want their trousers pulled down in the business stakes, then they should have been offering 20Mbit at least 6 years ago when all the others were.
It's no good sitting by the wayside saying "you can lease my copper", because that ain't going to make you money.
You either keep up or give up IMO.
-
llu providers wont have that edge any more, and lets face it, their pentration has been abysmally bad up to now any way.
Of course the penetration has been bad J...the provider is having to pay for the kit that BT should have had in place 10 years ago.
Interesting comment, why should BT have fitted it rather than anyone else? Could additionally argue, why should BT - a private commercial entity - allow other providers to use its kit or its premises or its lines.
I've always thought the same, but then again..BT ain't exactly putting themselves at the forefront in order to gain customers these days.
As an example of what I mean....I'm just seeing the adverts on telly for BT's "new" 20Mbit home broadband.
If BT don't want their trousers pulled down in the business stakes, then they should have been offering 20Mbit at least 6 years ago when all the others were.
It's no good sitting by the wayside saying "you can lease my copper", because that ain't going to make you money.
You either keep up or give up IMO.
Remember, for all but those 3% (which no ISP, retail or wholesale, wants), up until now, there has been no real need for such services.
Why pay for ADSL2+ DSLAMs (done in firmware in most, but still a cost), and all the backhauls, only to have to rip it all out again to do it for 21CN. No, as a business, they decided not to update some of the DSLAMS or expensive backhauls, and do it as part of their 21CN. Sounds like a sound business plan to me :-/