649185 - [config] Add new file for qwest.com

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Webtools :: ISPDB Database Entries, defect)

Description

[Roland Tanglao needinfo please :rolandtanglao, :mohnkuchen, :adobo, :sinigang, :roland]

Attachment: qwest.com xml file for ispdb

Qwest moved from using Microsoft's Live servers to their own servers at q.com for their email:
http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/tb_unable_to_create_new_account_for_q_com_via_myqwest_com_webpage#reply_5225709

If qwest email users are currently using live.com on Thunderbird, they may have to delete their POP and SMTP passwords in Thunderbird to get them to work with the new q.com servers

Comment 1

[Ludovic Hirlimann [:Usul]]

About setting review flags ?

Comment 2

[Roland Tanglao needinfo please :rolandtanglao, :mohnkuchen, :adobo, :sinigang, :roland]

Ludo: I will set the review flags once I figure out what the authentication setting should be.

Comment 3

[Roland Tanglao needinfo please :rolandtanglao, :mohnkuchen, :adobo, :sinigang, :roland]

Attachment: revised q.com aka qwest.com ispdb to be password-cleartext

these settings were confirmed by q.com users here:
http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/tb_unable_to_create_new_account_for_q_com_via_myqwest_com_webpage#reply_5319069

Comment 4

[Blake Winton (:bwinton) (:☕️)]

Comment on attachment 526802 [details]
revised q.com aka qwest.com ispdb to be password-cleartext

It all looks reasonable to me.  Ben?  Want to run some tests on it?

Thanks,
Blake.

Comment 5

[Blake Winton (:bwinton) (:☕️)]

Comment on attachment 526802 [details]
revised q.com aka qwest.com ispdb to be password-cleartext

(Apparently I don't know the difference between ? and +… ;)

Comment 6

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Comment on attachment 526802 [details]
revised q.com aka qwest.com ispdb to be password-cleartext

> <displayShortName>qwest.com

Should be "Qwest"

> <emailProvider id="q.com">

should be id="qwest.com" (should be the primary address of the company, not necessarily the customer email domain)

> <domain>q.com</domain>

There are no customer email addresses on @qwest.com?

Comment 7

[echo4]

qwest.com and q.com redirects to CenturyLink.com

How to set up your email to go through POP3 and SMTP 
   (We don't support IMAP. We're providing the IMAP settings here for self-help only.)
http://www.centurylink.com/help/index.php?assetid=239

Email server settings

We primarily support 6 email domains. For settings and how-to instructions, click on the domain that matches your email address.

    Centurylink.net
    Elpasotel.net
    Embarqmail.com
    Q.com
    Qwest.net
    Qwestoffice.net

    Others
        centurytel.net
        clds.net
        coastalnow.net
        cochill.net
        cswnet.com
        emadisonriver.com
        emadisonriver.net
        gallatinriver.net
        grics.net
        gulftel.com
        madisonriver.biz
        mebtel.net

Comment 8

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

DNS mx-entry-wise (via "dig -t mx DOMAIN.TLD"), I come up with three sets of forwarded-to domains from the ISPDB's perspective:
- (mx.quartz.)synacor.com: q.com
- (mx*).qwest.net: qwest.net
- (mx*).qwestoffice.com: qwestoffice.net
- (mx.)centurylink.net: all domains but the ones above.  (Specifically, everything under "others" plus centurylink.net itself obvious, elpasotel.net, and embarqmail.com).

Unfortunately, from the page you linked, centurylink.net seems to have different server settings (pop.centurylink.net) than those that just use its MX (pop.centurytel.net).  And these do appear to be different servers with different valid certificates.  See:
https://sslanalyzer.comodoca.com/?url=pop.centurylink.net%3A995
https://sslanalyzer.comodoca.com/?url=pop.centurytel.net%3A995

Interestingly, pop.centurytel.net does have a valid cert for all of the {mail,pop,pop3} prefixes for the domains it servers.  I don't think we should leverage that, however.

In any event, I think my take-away is that we should use explicit <domain> entries rather than relying on MX lookup for these domains because of the collision on the MX for centurylink.net.

Comment 9

[echo4]

Attachment: centurylink.net.xml

Comment 10

[echo4]

Attachment: centurytel.net.xml

Comment 11

[echo4]

Attachment: elpasotel.net.xml

Comment 12

[echo4]

Attachment: q.com.xml

Comment 13

[echo4]

Attachment: qwest.net.xml

Comment 14

[echo4]

Attachment: qwestoffice.net.xml

Comment 15

[echo4]

 centurylink.net.xml
   * Centurylink.net
   * Embarqmail.com

 elpasotel.net.xml
   * Elpasotel.net

 q.com.xml
   * Q.com

 qwest.net.xml
   * Qwest.net

 qwestoffice.net.xml
   * Qwestoffice.net

 centurytel.net.xml
   * centurytel.net
   * clds.net
   * coastalnow.net
   * cochill.net
   * cswnet.com
   * emadisonriver.com
   * emadisonriver.net
   * gallatinriver.net
   * grics.net
   * gulftel.com
   * madisonriver.biz
   * mebtel.net

Comment 16

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

(In reply to chief_uk_2613 from comment #13)
> Created attachment 8725933 [details]
> qwest.net.xml

Not adding this one because it uses <socketType>plain</socketType> and TLS doesn't seem to be an option.

(In reply to chief_uk_2613 from comment #14)
> Created attachment 8725934 [details]
> qwestoffice.net.xml

Similar deal here, not adding.  Docs say not to use TLS, and although there is a server offering TLS on port 995, the certs are bad.

E    q.com
E    centurytel.net
E    centurylink.net
E    elpasotel.net
Updated to revision 150392.

Comment 17

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Hey asuth and chief,
to make maintenance and consistency easier, I had been trying hard to keep only one file per ISP. For all ISPs - with very few exceptions - that worked. Of course they never document that (the ISP will always publish configs where server hostnames match email domains), but normally the same server works for all brands of the ISP. Could you please check whether that's the case here and unify the files into one config with several domains?

Comment 18

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

Ben, please see comment 8 where I looked into the MX entries and domains, etc.  There does seem to be different server infra in place which ruled out having a single entry or depending on MX lookups.  If you can provide patches to help clean things up, that's great.

As a meta thing: This seems a bit like a "perfect is the enemy of the good" scenario.  With the Gaia Mail app de facto cancelled, Thunderbird's continued autoconfig-MITM-able-ness, and most of the backlog of servers being sucky for anyone who has to use them, I'm a bit personally burnt out on the ISPDB right now.  Since the backlog of unprocessed bugs is embarrassing and chief has been doing a great job of trying to help clear them out, I've been trying to help get them cleared out while maybe helping chief gain experience to eventually take over or what not.  In general having the XML files parallel the official documentation is pretty handy for minimizing review burden.  (Also, I've screwed up in cases where I tried to be clever and unify files that could not actually be unified, and that was after it took a while to unify them.)

Ben, if you would like to resume actively reviewing, that would be awesome, because I'd be happy to stop for a while.  If you're not able to do so, I don't think it's really fair to increase the burden for those who are doing the work unless it's leading to incorrect configurations.  Note that this is just my overwhelmed perspective; chief seemed very happy to try and help do advocacy things when you stepped in to mention them.  I'm not being a great reviewer or mentor-type person at this time, but unfortunately I think I'm the only one available right now.  (And again if that's not the case and you are available, that would be awesome.  You clearly have more passion and vision for the ISPDB than I, but at least it seemed until recently you lacked the time.)

Comment 19

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Hey asuth, sorry, I had not seen your comment 8.
Sorry for coming over as wise-arse.
I understand you being burnt out. It is a big burden, and you have more important things to do (UI design, dev). I understand. I'm not able to do ISPDB reviews at this time, no, for the same reason.

In case this helps, gozer had a script (written by bwinton and gozer) running on the server that told us ISPDB reviewers the top 10 hits and top 20 misses in the ISPDB. I was prioritizing those, both in addition and corrections. Most other configs, I'd just ignore or reject. If you find that approach helpful, you could ask gozer to re-enable that script. I'd like the emails, too.

I had stopped maintaining the ISPDB when Mozilla had cut me off from these top hit/miss emails.