Would that be ok?

[Steve]

I was having a problem last night sending an email with an attachment. Emails without attachments were working ok...

[Dec 2 2006 12:35:25 AM] Welcome to our chat customer support .
[Dec 2 2006 12:35:29 AM] Glenn, you have been connected to Alyssa
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:36:02 AM): Glenn, thank you for contacting HughesNet Technical Support. My name is Alyssa and I appreciate the opportunity to assist you. Before we go ahead with this conversation, I would like to inform you in case we get disconnected, please connect to the chat session again immediately through http://customercare.myhughesnet.com
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:36:14 AM): Hello Glenn.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:36:14 AM): ok
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:36:47 AM): Could you please tell me what are the Incoming and Outgoing mails servers that you are using?
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:37:12 AM): mail.hughes.net & smtp.hughes.net
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:37:49 AM): Also, did you check the My server requires authentication checkbox?
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:38:57 AM): Is that the "Log on using Secure Password Authentication (SPA)" box?
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:40:10 AM): No, it is the "My server requires/needs authentication" checkbox.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:40:36 AM): That box is checked.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:41:25 AM): And "Use same settings as my incoming mail server" is checked, too.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:41:39 AM): Ok. Could you tell me what is the size of that attachment?
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:42:09 AM): 1,012 Kb
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:42:48 AM): Thank you for the information.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:43:24 AM): May I have a few minutes to research this issue?
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:43:39 AM): ok
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:43:47 AM): Thank you.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:48:45 AM): Thank you for your patience.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:49:59 AM): Glenn, I Webmail degradation has been reported due to which you will not be able to check your mails through Webmail interface(http://mail.hughes.net)
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:50:41 AM): So this may affect the troubleshooting step that you need to perform to troubleshoot this issue.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:51:03 AM): ok, i was able to log onto the webmail to see if the server was down
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:51:10 AM): earlier
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:51:19 AM): like 10 minutes ago
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:52:01 AM): Yes, but some tools may not work.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:52:06 AM): ok
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:53:49 AM): Also,
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:54:48 AM): for this issue you need to contact Microsoft as this problem occurs when the read receipt notification e-mail message is processed by a Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server computer by using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) protocol with anonymous access authentication turned off.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:55:05 AM): They have a resolution for this issue.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:55:36 AM): Please go to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/836491#top.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:57:02 AM): ok, but i'm not sending a read receipt request with the email
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:58:28 AM): and i'm not running an exchange 2000 server
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:58:54 AM): Glenn, the error number 0x8004210B is a Microsoft generated number fro which you would need to contact Microsoft. For more explanation please go to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/836491#top.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:59:41 AM): i am at that page and it talks about a server issue...i would think that hughesnet is running the server, not me
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:00:39 AM): and again, i'm not sending a receipt request, only a pdf file attachment
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:01:02 AM): Glenn, you are using Microsoft Outlook belonging to Microsoft and as per my resources you need to contact Microsoft for this issue.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:01:34 AM): you are not understanding me
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:02:06 AM): Microsoft's fix is for a server update
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:02:13 AM): Glenn, I am able to understand you. They have also mentioned that to resolve this problem, obtain the August 2004 Exchange 2000 Server Post-Service Pack 3 update rollup. For additional information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:02:14 AM): I don't have a server to update
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:02:43 AM): Outlook uses an exchange server to send and receive emails.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:03:14 AM): This is the reason you need to use the Incoming and Outgoing mails servers.
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:03:27 AM): is that your final answer?
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:05:14 AM): As the error code 0x8004210B is generated by Microsoft Outlook and has nothing to do with HughesNet. No, We are currently facing Degradation in Webmail. So please try again after some time.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:05:56 AM): Would that be ok?

 

[wsuffa]

Blah. So-called tech support is really "pass the buck".

It's part of the reason I run my own mail server. With VPN access.

I've only had a problem at a handful of Panera Bread locations where the ISP blocks VPN.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Wow.

Anyone with half a brain can see that she's just proven that it's their own fault, but she wants YOU to update "your server." Hah.

I kinda miss having my own mail server.

 

[SkyHog]

Pass the buck my ass, that's a perfectly logical and legit answer. Glenn is requesting help with a Microsoft product through Hughes net. They only offer support up to a point.

Now, if the problem existed with multiple email programs (the key is, 0x8004210B is, in fact, a Microsoft issue, so it wouldn't be problematic on, say, Thunderbird). The original request for help wasn't listed, so I'm assuming that error number was passed to the representative (there's a big logic leap in the chat log, as it goes immediately from "What server are you using" to "Ok, that error message means this."

But...lets all paint customer service as evil. Customer Disservice, am I right? Am I right??

 

[Steve]

Not evil customer service.

Incompetent technical support.

The information Glenn needed was "Our mail server is experiencing problems right now. Please try again later."

Not "You have a problem with your server. Go fix it yourself. That's not our problem.", which was totally bogus.

The error message generated by Outlook indicated a server problem. Glenn does not have a server, as explained to the "support" person. Nor did he perform any action which the error code indicated occurred (sending a receipt request). That should be a clue.

Pass the buck my ass, that's a perfectly logical and legit answer. Glenn is requesting help with a Microsoft product through Hughes net. They only offer support up to a point.

Now, if the problem existed with multiple email programs (the key is, 0x8004210B is, in fact, a Microsoft issue, so it wouldn't be problematic on, say, Thunderbird). The original request for help wasn't listed, so I'm assuming that error number was passed to the representative (there's a big logic leap in the chat log, as it goes immediately from "What server are you using" to "Ok, that error message means this."

But...lets all paint customer service as evil. Customer Disservice, am I right? Am I right??

 

[Greebo]

Pass the buck my ass, that's a perfectly logical and legit answer. Glenn is requesting help with a Microsoft product through Hughes net. They only offer support up to a point.

Now, if the problem existed with multiple email programs (the key is, 0x8004210B is, in fact, a Microsoft issue, so it wouldn't be problematic on, say, Thunderbird). The original request for help wasn't listed, so I'm assuming that error number was passed to the representative (there's a big logic leap in the chat log, as it goes immediately from "What server are you using" to "Ok, that error message means this."

But...lets all paint customer service as evil. Customer Disservice, am I right? Am I right??

No, it WASN'T a legitimate or logical answer. The woman didn't know what she was talking about, but cited chapter and verse that Microsoft's solution is a server update.

THEY had the server, not Glenn.

 

[jesse]

Pass the buck my ass, that's a perfectly logical and legit answer. Glenn is requesting help with a Microsoft product through Hughes net. They only offer support up to a point.

Now, if the problem existed with multiple email programs (the key is, 0x8004210B is, in fact, a Microsoft issue, so it wouldn't be problematic on, say, Thunderbird). The original request for help wasn't listed, so I'm assuming that error number was passed to the representative (there's a big logic leap in the chat log, as it goes immediately from "What server are you using" to "Ok, that error message means this."

But...lets all paint customer service as evil. Customer Disservice, am I right? Am I right??

Nick. What are you smoking? Steve is not asking for help with a Microsoft product. When he tries to send an e-mail with an attachment it does not go through. He showed them the error. It's not his e-mail client.

The customer service rep went on to paste that error code in the Microsoft knowledge base and come back with some stupid ass "Security Rollup" for Exchange. Steve is not running Exchange. He's just running an SMTP client. It's their server that's ****ed. Plus I doubt that Hughes even uses Exchange for their customers.

 

[SkyHog]

Well, I ask again then, the customer service rep got the error msg 0x8004210B from somewhere. Being given that error message, I would tell the customer to do the same thing.

I don't question Microsoft's solutions. And FWIW, whenever I get this EXACT SAME ISSUE, using a different email client works EVERY time. So it can't be a server issue on Hughes Net's part. The customer service rep made one big mistake: giving the web address for Microsoft's solution. Forget that, its what causes "experts" to question what they're saying. I tell 'em to call Microsoft. Its a Microsoft issue, and Microsoft can deal with the fallout of their own solutions to problems.

edit: Actually, I would have tricked Glenn, because its easier than fighting him. Like telling a customer to reboot their modem and look for a flashing alternating green and red debug light on the front (because they claim they've already rebooted the modem). It doesn't appear? Oh, I wonder why....oh, you can get on the internet now? I wonder how that happened? In this case, I'd have told Glenn something like 'Microsoft is tracking that issue, please call them so they can further assist you.'

 

[jesse]

Well, I ask again then, the customer service rep got the error msg 0x8004210B from somewhere. Being given that error message, I would tell the customer to do the same thing.

I don't question Microsoft's solutions. And FWIW, whenever I get this EXACT SAME ISSUE, using a different email client works EVERY time. So it can't be a server issue on Hughes Net's part. The customer service rep made one big mistake: giving the web address for Microsoft's solution. Forget that, its what causes "experts" to question what they're saying. I tell 'em to call Microsoft. Its a Microsoft issue, and Microsoft can deal with the fallout of their own solutions to problems.

You shouldn't just blindly give out some Microsoft KB article to some customer without looking at it. See how it says EXCHANGE do you know what Exchange is? If you don't know what it is the support issue should be escalated. Instead the issue wasn't escalated it wasn't solved either. You just got another ****ed off customer. Exchange is an E-MAIL SERVER just like how Internet Information Services or Apache are a web server. If you had a problem with web hosting would it **** you off if they told you to apply a security fix to Apache?

The customer service rep's response was retarded. If they didn't understand it they should keep their mouth shut and send it on to someone that does. Remember you are customer service. Just because your company sucks ass doesn't mean that you should take it out on the customers. They think the company sucks ass too. Work with them and stick it to the company. Don't just make **** up.

I handle support issues all the time. If I were to ever just make something up or write about **** I didn't understand I wouldn't have a job anymore.

 

[SCCutler]

Guys, it's pretty obvious what happened: The problem and identifiable symptoms went beyond the skills and/or knowledge of the tech support person, and there was no script written to deal with it, so she did the only thing she had left (and, perhaps, what she was instructed to do): she punted.

 

[ScottM]

Guys, it's pretty obvious what happened: The problem and identifiable symptoms went beyond the skills and/or knowledge of the tech support person, and there was no script written to deal with it, so she did the only thing she had left (and, perhaps, what she was instructed to do): she punted.

And the ball went through the 'useless repsonse' uprights.

 

[SkyHog]

You shouldn't just blindly give out some Microsoft KB article to some customer without looking at it. See how it says EXCHANGE do you know what Exchange is? If you don't know what it is the support issue should be escalated. Instead the issue wasn't escalated it wasn't solved either. You just got another ****ed off customer. Exchange is an E-MAIL SERVER just like how Internet Information Services or Apache are a web server. If you had a problem with web hosting would it **** you off if they told you to apply a security fix to Apache?

The customer service rep's response was retarded. If they didn't understand it they should keep their mouth shut and send it on to someone that does. Remember you are customer service. Just because your company sucks ass doesn't mean that you should take it out on the customers. They think the company sucks ass too. Work with them and stick it to the company. Don't just make **** up.

I handle support issues all the time. If I were to ever just make something up or write about **** I didn't understand I wouldn't have a job anymore.

You're assuming there is a "Tier 2" support level, not all companies have this. Here's the thing, Jesse, you might be an expert at what you do, but until you get the EXACT same issure 400 times a week, you're less qualified to solve the problems that the rep solves 400 times a week. Again, the issue with 0x8004210B is solved EVERY time by using another email client, so its NOT a server issue with Hughes, its a Microsoft issue. The rep made the mistake of giving out a link to a Microsoft article that gives one possible solution to the error, instead of telling the customer to contact Microsoft themselves.

And as far as making **** up to get the customer to the right place to solve a problem, or even making **** up to actually solve the problem, it doesn't matter, the point is that the customer gets the solution they need. My diagnostic light on the modem thing is a perfect example. Without that, I'd spend 5 minutes telling acustomer to try a bunch of stuff that would not work, versus the one thing that WILL work, because the customer thinks they are an expert.

Every single customer that calls tech support thinks they're an expert. If they were, in fact, an expert, they wouldn't be calling for help. Also - every single customer thinks their problem is unique and that its a problem on the server side. In the near 10 years I've been doing customer support, I've run across maybe 3 unique situations, 2 of which were caused by the customer to begin with and the third actually being a server side issue.

Here's a few key notes that the rep pointed out that was ignored by the "expert" in question:

So this may affect the troubleshooting step that you need to perform to troubleshoot this issue.

ok, i was able to log onto the webmail to see if the server was down earlier like 10 minutes ago

He's calling her a liar. The rep only said that the problem MAY cause issues, which means that the scope of the repair is unknown (by ANYONE, and no, you can't talk to the person in charge of the upgrade, he's not paid to talk to customers, he's paid to fix the server).

for this issue you need to contact Microsoft as this problem occurs when the read receipt notification e-mail message is processed by a Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server computer by using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) protocol with anonymous access authentication turned off. They have a resolution for this issue.

That is where she should have left it, the KDB article she quoted is where the mistake occurred. This problem is very much a Microsoft problem, and if it weren't for the fact that EVERY customer assumes we're just trying to pass them to the next rep, that's where she probably would have left it. Instead, she goes beyond the scope of her job and gives a link to the wrong KDB article.

After being told she doesn't know what she's doing, she responds with:

Glenn, the error number 0x8004210B is a Microsoft generated number fro (sic) which you would need to contact Microsoft.

She then quotes the wrong KDB article again. At this point, she likely knows she's about to find herself in a long argument about whether or not this is a Microsoft issue.

From then on out, the rest of the argument is about the mistaken KDB article. Its hard to get back on track when a customer is intentionally flustering you. I think she did a good job and should be commended, but I know, as does she likely, that we're gonna always be the enemy. C'est la vie.

 

[tonycondon]

i think i know the problem.

Glenn needs to buy a Mac!

 

[Steve]

Nick, I resent your statement that the tech rep was called a liar. You weren't present during the chat session. You don't know the context of the comment you find fault with. The rep stated the information she had was the server was having problems. The information given her stated there had been no problem logging onto it. It had no implication directed towards her competence at that point. It was a point of information. The telling issue is the assumption on her part that the problem was with the end user, when, in fact it was the ISP's hardware that was causing the problem. It must have been only a miracle that the end users software worked normally at a later time without modification once the full IPS server functionality was restored. Insisting someone install a server fix when that person doesn't have a server is not appropriate, regardless of the level of technical expertise.

You're assuming there is a "Tier 2" support level, not all companies have this. Here's the thing, Jesse, you might be an expert at what you do, but until you get the EXACT same issure 400 times a week, you're less qualified to solve the problems that the rep solves 400 times a week. Again, the issue with 0x8004210B is solved EVERY time by using another email client, so its NOT a server issue with Hughes, its a Microsoft issue. The rep made the mistake of giving out a link to a Microsoft article that gives one possible solution to the error, instead of telling the customer to contact Microsoft themselves.

And as far as making **** up to get the customer to the right place to solve a problem, or even making **** up to actually solve the problem, it doesn't matter, the point is that the customer gets the solution they need. My diagnostic light on the modem thing is a perfect example. Without that, I'd spend 5 minutes telling acustomer to try a bunch of stuff that would not work, versus the one thing that WILL work, because the customer thinks they are an expert.

Every single customer that calls tech support thinks they're an expert. If they were, in fact, an expert, they wouldn't be calling for help. Also - every single customer thinks their problem is unique and that its a problem on the server side. In the near 10 years I've been doing customer support, I've run across maybe 3 unique situations, 2 of which were caused by the customer to begin with and the third actually being a server side issue.

Here's a few key notes that the rep pointed out that was ignored by the "expert" in question:




He's calling her a liar. The rep only said that the problem MAY cause issues, which means that the scope of the repair is unknown (by ANYONE, and no, you can't talk to the person in charge of the upgrade, he's not paid to talk to customers, he's paid to fix the server).



That is where she should have left it, the KDB article she quoted is where the mistake occurred. This problem is very much a Microsoft problem, and if it weren't for the fact that EVERY customer assumes we're just trying to pass them to the next rep, that's where she probably would have left it. Instead, she goes beyond the scope of her job and gives a link to the wrong KDB article.

After being told she doesn't know what she's doing, she responds with:


She then quotes the wrong KDB article again. At this point, she likely knows she's about to find herself in a long argument about whether or not this is a Microsoft issue.

From then on out, the rest of the argument is about the mistaken KDB article. Its hard to get back on track when a customer is intentionally flustering you. I think she did a good job and should be commended, but I know, as does she likely, that we're gonna always be the enemy. C'est la vie.

 

[CJones]

i think i know the problem.

Glenn needs to buy a Mac!

Oh gawd... You should be taken into the street and shot!

 

[ScottM]

i think i know the problem.

Glenn needs to buy a Mac!

While that is normally a good solution to many a problem with WinDoze it would not have helped in this case. It appears there was an issue with one of the hughes email servers, even though they tried to get Steve to fix it, because the tech could not read nor understand the error code, so no matter what was hooked up to it would not solve the issue. The issue was on the ISP's end.

 

[SkyHog]

The issue was on the ISP's end.

No, it wasn't. A Mac would have solved this issue.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick, I resent your statement that the tech rep was called a liar. You weren't present during the chat session. You don't know the context of the comment you find fault with. The rep stated the information she had was the server was having problems. The information given her stated there had been no problem logging onto it. It had no implication directed towards her competence at that point. It was a point of information. The telling issue is the assumption on her part that the problem was with the end user, when, in fact it was the ISP's hardware that was causing the problem. It must have been only a miracle that the end users software worked normally at a later time without modification once the full IPS server functionality was restored. Insisting someone install a server fix when that person doesn't have a server is not appropriate, regardless of the level of technical expertise.

I am sorry, Steve, I didn't read the OP closely enough, I missed that you were the customer, I also didn't know your first name is Glenn.

The reason that it started working again later is a tough one. It could have been related to the degradation she mentioned, but I don't buy it. I get these calls all the time, and a reboot of the computer fixes it 90% of the time. The other 10% go to Microsoft. Either way, 100% of the time, using another email client solves the problem, so its not a server issue.

There is a process on my computer that if I terminate gives me a whole slew of "Server" error messages, and I'm not running a server either. It only happens when I terminate that process. Not all server errors are actually the server's fault.

 

[Greebo]

I am sorry, Steve, I didn't read the OP closely enough, I missed that you were the customer, I also didn't know your first name is Glenn.

The reason that it started working again later is a tough one. It could have been related to the degradation she mentioned, but I don't buy it. I get these calls all the time, and a reboot of the computer fixes it 90% of the time. The other 10% go to Microsoft. Either way, 100% of the time, using another email client solves the problem, so its not a server issue.

There is a process on my computer that if I terminate gives me a whole slew of "Server" error messages, and I'm not running a server either. It only happens when I terminate that process. Not all server errors are actually the server's fault.

Nick the fact remains that based on what the Tech Rep *said* the problem was, the advice she was given FLEW IN THE FACE of what she was quoting.

Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:54:48 AM): for this issue you need to contact Microsoft as this problem occurs when the read receipt notification e-mail message is processed by a Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server computer by using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) protocol with anonymous access authentication turned off.

Had she read further, she'd have seen that the solution to this issue *IS* a server issue, it is to apply a service pack to Exchange Server - which *if* this is the right article (and I don't see that error # she quotes mentioned by Glenn at ALL, so I'm not sure where she got it).

Exchange server is something HugesNet would run, NOT Glenn. It's a multi-thousand dollar email server system, of which Outlook is only a client.

Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:55:05 AM): They have a resolution for this issue.
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:55:36 AM): Please go to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/836491#top.

Again, she sends him to this link, which clearly spells out that its a HughesNet issue.

Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:57:02 AM): ok, but i'm not sending a read receipt request with the email
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:58:28 AM): and i'm not running an exchange 2000 server

SHOULD tell her that the answer she found isn't applicable, but she plows on.

Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 12:58:54 AM): Glenn, the error number 0x8004210B is a Microsoft generated number fro which you would need to contact Microsoft. For more explanation please go to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/836491#top.

No, if this is the right solution, HughesNet should contact Microsoft, but she doesn't understand that HughesNet runs the servers, not Glenn.

Glenn(Dec 2 2006 12:59:41 AM): i am at that page and it talks about a server issue...i would think that hughesnet is running the server, not me
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:00:39 AM): and again, i'm not sending a receipt request, only a pdf file attachment

AGAIN, Glenn points out that the article she linked isn't applicable.

Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:01:02 AM): Glenn, you are using Microsoft Outlook belonging to Microsoft and as per my resources you need to contact Microsoft for this issue.

Ladedadeda, she's not listening.

Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:01:34 AM): you are not understanding me
Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:02:06 AM): Microsoft's fix is for a server update
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:02:13 AM): Glenn, I am able to understand you. They have also mentioned that to resolve this problem, obtain the August 2004 Exchange 2000 Server Post-Service Pack 3 update rollup. For additional information, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:

Lalala I'm gonna keep on saying the same thing because I don't know what the **** I'm talking about. You're just a stupid customer.

Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:02:14 AM): I don't have a server to update
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:02:43 AM): Outlook uses an exchange server to send and receive emails.

She's right, Outlook DOES (or rather, CAN) use Exchange to send/rcv email. However, EXCHANGE is hosted by the ISP (if its being used).

Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:03:14 AM): This is the reason you need to use the Incoming and Outgoing mails servers.

Glenn(Dec 2 2006 1:03:27 AM): is that your final answer?
Alyssa(Dec 2 2006 1:05:14 AM): As the error code 0x8004210B is generated by Microsoft Outlook and has nothing to do with HughesNet. No, We are currently facing Degradation in Webmail. So please try again after some time.

And again, wrong wrong wrong on her part.

You are being VERY defensive about Customer Service reps in general, and probably rightly so, but in this case, you're fighting the wrong fight. Just because YOU are a good CSR and there are lots of good CSRs out there does not automatically make THIS CSR any good, and based on the quoted conversation, she is quite bad.

 

[jesse]

It's a multi-thousand dollar email server system, of which Outlook is only a client.

huh?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832102508

I also *highly* doubt they are using Exchange as their front line e-mail server for their customers. It would be extremely costly with little to no benefit.

First let's try and see what they are using. We'll talk to the mail server manually using telnet:

root@virtualserver:~# telnet smtp.hughes.net 25
Trying 64.97.131.50...
Connected to smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 n126.sc0.cp.net ESMTP Service (7.2.069.1) ready
helo jesseangell.com
250 n126.sc0.cp.net
MAIL FROM:<jesse@jesseSPAMBOTSAREDUMB.com>
250 MAIL FROM:<jesse@jesseSPAMBOTSAREDUMB.com> OK
RCPT TO:<splane@hughes.net>
250 RCPT TO:<splane@hughes.net> OK
DATA
354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
Subject:  Test E-mail
This is a test.  Ignore this Steve.
.

250 <456F4CBB000AD8F3> Mail accepted
QUIT
221 n126.sc0.cp.net QUIT
Connection closed by foreign host.

That is not exchange. Let's do a little more research and see what we can come up with.

root@virtualserver:~# host smtp.hughes.net
smtp.hughes.net is an alias for smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com.
smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com has address 64.97.131.50
smtp.hughes.net is an alias for smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com.
smtp.hughes.net is an alias for smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com.
root@virtualserver:~#

That's interesting. Let's try and see what this securehostedemail.com is all about.

root@virtualserver:~# whois securehostedemail.com


Whois Server Version 2.0




   Domain Name: SECUREHOSTEDEMAIL.COM
   Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
   Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
   Referral URL: http://domainhelp.tucows.com
   Name Server: DNS3.TUCOWS.COM
   Name Server: DNS2.TUCOWS.COM
   Name Server: DNS1.TUCOWS.COM
   Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
   EPP Status: clientDeleteProhibited
   EPP Status: clientTransferProhibited
   EPP Status: clientUpdateProhibited
   Updated Date: 11-Sep-2006
   Creation Date: 01-Feb-2006
   Expiration Date: 01-Feb-2007



Registrars.
Registrant:
 Tucows.com Inc.
 96 Mowat Avenue
 Toronto, Ontario M6K3M1
 CA

 Domain name: SECUREHOSTEDEMAIL.COM

 Administrative Contact:
    Administrator, DNS  dnsadmin@tucows.com
    96 Mowat Avenue
    Toronto, Ontario M6K3M1
    CA
    +1.4165350123x0000
 Technical Contact:
    Contact, Technical  dnstech@tucows.com
    96 Mowat Ave
    Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
    CA
    416-535-0123


 Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
 Record last updated on 19-Sep-2006.
 Record expires on 01-Feb-2007.
 Record created on 01-Feb-2006.

 Domain servers in listed order:
    DNS2.TUCOWS.COM   216.40.37.12
    DNS1.TUCOWS.COM   216.40.37.11
    DNS3.TUCOWS.COM   204.50.180.59


 Domain status: clientDeleteProhibited
                clientTransferProhibited
                clientUpdateProhibited



root@virtualserver:~#

That's even more interesting. It looks like Tucows owns that domain. Let's dig a little further

root@virtualserver:~# ping smtp.hughes.net
PING smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com (64.97.131.50) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.97.131.50: icmp_seq=1 ttl=109 time=59.9 ms
64 bytes from 64.97.131.50: icmp_seq=2 ttl=109 time=57.5 ms

--- smtp.hughes.net.cust.securehostedemail.com ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 57.526/58.746/59.967/1.244 ms
root@virtualserver:~#

I wonder who own's 64.97.131.50...Let's find out

root@virtualserver:~# whois 64.97.131.50

OrgName:    Tucows.com Co.
OrgID:      TUCOW
Address:    96 Mowat Avenue
City:       Toronto
StateProv:  ON
PostalCode: M6K-3M1
Country:    CA

NetRange:   64.96.0.0 - 64.99.255.255
CIDR:       64.96.0.0/14
NetName:    TUCOWS-BLK2
NetHandle:  NET-64-96-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.HE.TUCOWS.COM
NameServer: NS2.HE.TUCOWS.COM
NameServer: NS3.HE.TUCOWS.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    2000-05-18
Updated:    2006-02-28

OrgTechHandle: NOC2038-ARIN
OrgTechName:   Network Operations Center
OrgTechPhone:  +1-416-535-0123
OrgTechEmail:  arin-maint@tucows.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-12-03 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
root@virtualserver:~#

Hmm. It looks like Tucows own's this IP address too. It's starting to look like Tucows runs the Hughes e-mail servers. I wonder what else we can find out with the help of Google.

http://hostedemail.tucows.com/

Yup Tucows offers a service to host e-mail for service providers. Good luck *EVER* getting an e-mail issue resolved since you have to go through some idiot level 1 tech who has no idea..and no one else will have any idea because they don't even run their own e-mail servers. I'd quit using them for e-mail.

 

[ScottM]

No, it wasn't. A Mac would have solved this issue.

Then you do not understand email systems. The server resides at and is part of the ISPs responsibility. It is not in user problem. I know you want all customer service people to be as carrying as you in their directions, but the fact remains what she said was the problem was her problem and not the customer's.

 

[Greebo]

huh?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832102508

Yes, but that's 2003. The current *enterprise* version is, as I said, Multi-thousand.

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/howtobuy/default.mspx#EOD

That said...

I also *highly* doubt they are using Exchange as their front line e-mail server for their customers. It would be extremely costly with little to no benefit.

I agree its unlikely for an ISP, BUT, that's going well outside the context of the discussion that was posted. Based SOLELY on the IM conversation posted, she (the CSR) as much as said they were using Exchange. If they AREN'T using exchange then she was wrong again on a very different level and *still* should have escallated.

//snip lots of investigative networknig//

Yup Tucows offers a service to host e-mail for service providers. Good luck *EVER* getting an e-mail issue resolved since you have to go through some idiot level 1 tech who has no idea..and no one else will have any idea because they don't even run their own e-mail servers. I'd quit using them for e-mail.

Good info for Glenn - bad news for the CSR who doesn't even know what her company runs and is giving out bad answers just to get rid of a customer with a problem.

 

[Greebo]

Then you do not understand email systems. The server resides at and is part of the ISPs responsibility. It is not in user problem. I know you want all customer service people to be as carrying as you in their directions, but the fact remains what she said was the problem was her problem and not the customer's.

Exactly! She quoted chapter and verse a trouble report that said "ITS OUR SERVERS FAULT" and then sent him off to deal with Microsoft.

She was wrong from every angle, including the fact that they don't even use Exchange, per Jesse's impressive research.

 

[SkyHog]

Then you do not understand email systems. The server resides at and is part of the ISPs responsibility. It is not in user problem. I know you want all customer service people to be as carrying as you in their directions, but the fact remains what she said was the problem was her problem and not the customer's.

Listen, Scott, I know you are probably as all-knowing as every other techie in the world, but what I am telling you is from experience, fixing this problem almost all day long, numerous times every day. I think you are too blinded by your hate of CSRs to realize that maybe, just maybe, a "Server" error is not a "Server" error. Otherwise, explain how using a different email client fixes the problem everytime?

Do I not understand email systems, or are you another "Expert"?

Either way, this thread is insane. I don't even want to debate it anymore. Plain and simple, I don't care how educated you are, or how much of a computer god you are, until you solve the same problems every day, you are not qualified to call a CSR out on lack of knowledge.

And Greebo may be right, I might be a bit sensitive to this, but this is NOT A SERVER ISSUE!!!!!!

NOT!! A!!! SERVER!!!! ISSUE!!!!!

 

[jesse]

Listen, Scott, I know you are probably as all-knowing as every other techie in the world, but what I am telling you is from experience, fixing this problem almost all day long, numerous times every day. I think you are too blinded by your hate of CSRs to realize that maybe, just maybe, a "Server" error is not a "Server" error. Otherwise, explain how using a different email client fixes the problem everytime?

Do I not understand email systems, or are you another "Expert"?

Either way, this thread is insane. I don't even want to debate it anymore. Plain and simple, I don't care how educated you are, or how much of a computer god you are, until you solve the same problems every day, you are not qualified to call a CSR out on lack of knowledge.

And Greebo may be right, I might be a bit sensitive to this, but this is NOT A SERVER ISSUE!!!!!!

NOT!! A!!! SERVER!!!! ISSUE!!!!!

It was a server issue.

Macs rule the world.

Low wings suck.

 

[SkyHog]

LOL Jesse.

 

[Greebo]

And Greebo may be right, I might be a bit sensitive to this, but this is NOT A SERVER ISSUE!!!!!!

NOT!! A!!! SERVER!!!! ISSUE!!!!!

NOT!!! THE!!! POINT!!!

Look, Nick, you know the use of more than one exclamation point is a sign of a troubled mind, right?

The point is NOT that this was not a server issue. I know it wasn't a server issue because the ISP doesn't use Exchange, as Jesse proved.

The point is that IN THIS CASE, the CSR *declared* that it was a server issue by religiously holding onto the WRONG EXPLANATION, and then MISINTERPRETING IT.

If she were just wrong about the article, but then read it and said, 'Hmm, well the article says its Exchange Server and that's not a user product', and esclated, that would have been a good thing.

If she'd listened to Glenn telling her he didn't have exchange server, that would also have been a good thing.

She got so many things wrong, however, and said things in direct conflict with each other, but would not listen to Glenn when he said he thought she was on the wrong track.

Her final answer, to contact Microsoft, MAY have been ultimately correct. However, ANY conclusion based on false premises can not be assumed to be correct.

Another example of her bad info. First she asks what POP and SMTP addresses she's using. Later she says that Outlook uses Exchange Server to send and receive email. No. Outlook *CAN* use Exchange Server, but Exchange Server doesn't use POP or SMTP. The fact that she asked about POP and SMTP says right there that Outlook was *NOT* in fact using Exchange server to get or send mail. This makes her rather eggregious error in returning a Microsoft article about problems with exchange server even worse.

Look, I've dealt with a lot of good CSRs and a lot of bad CSRs. This one was a waste of a paycheck. Blindly defending her for no good reason is just adding to the problem of bad customer service everywhere. If I were you I'd be saying, 'Yeah, she was pretty bad. I hope we don't have anyone that bad here and if we do, I need to help solve the problem.'

 

[SkyHog]

touche', Chuck. She made a lot of unneccesary mistakes during the conversation. I suspect she was trying to speak over Steve's head here, in an attempt to thwart argument. Whether or not that is a good idea is debateable, but its a useful tactic, and it blew back in her face this time.

 

[ScottM]

Listen, Scott, I know you are probably as all-knowing as every other techie in the world, but what I am telling you is from experience, fixing this problem almost all day long, numerous times every day. I think you are too blinded by your hate of CSRs to realize that maybe, just maybe, a "Server" error is not a "Server" error. Otherwise, explain how using a different email client fixes the problem everytime?

Do I not understand email systems, or are you another "Expert"?

Either way, this thread is insane. I don't even want to debate it anymore. Plain and simple, I don't care how educated you are, or how much of a computer god you are, until you solve the same problems every day, you are not qualified to call a CSR out on lack of knowledge.

And Greebo may be right, I might be a bit sensitive to this, but this is NOT A SERVER ISSUE!!!!!!

NOT!! A!!! SERVER!!!! ISSUE!!!!!

I did not say it was a server issue, the person at the helpless desk declared it be. And when she declared it to be a server issue the wrong answer was to have the customer fix their server. She misdiagnosed the problem and then gave the wrong solution to the problem she misdiagnosed. In otherwords she screwed up twice.

There is absolutely no way that she comes off looking good on this and that is the whole crux of the issue. I think that perhaps you are too "blinded" by your wanting all CSC's to be filled with good, smart, conscientious technicians, but the reality is that it is not so. There are many bad ones. They are the ones that we all remember, the good ones seem to few and far between.

Can you not see that she misdiagnosed the problem and then gave a wrong solution to have the customer fix a server?

I just wonder if she can swing my compass too?

 

[SkyHog]

Can you not see that she misdiagnosed the problem and then gave a wrong solution to have the customer fix a server?

It depends on how you look at it. The solution to the issue is to have Microsoft fix the problem or use another email client temorarily (the problem rarely lasts beyond a restart unless something has been corrupted). Her solution was to go to Microsoft for support. Her reasoning for that was wrong, but it was the correct solution.

 

[ScottM]

It depends on how you look at it. The solution to the issue is to have Microsoft fix the problem or use another email client temorarily (the problem rarely lasts beyond a restart unless something has been corrupted). Her solution was to go to Microsoft for support. Her reasoning for that was wrong, but it was the correct solution.

She got lucky. She could have gave him the stick number one thing to do on any computer tech checklist, 'reboot the computer' and that might have fixed the problem.