I guess SNPP is still a thing: $ host snpp.att.net <http://snpp.att.net> snpp.att.net <http://snpp.att.net> is an alias for snpp.att.unimobile.com <http://snpp.att.unimobile.com>. snpp.att.unimobile.com <http://snpp.att.unimobile.com> is an alias for snpp-att.gmes.syniverse.com <http://snpp-att.gmes.syniverse.com>. snpp-att.gmes.syniverse.com <http://snpp-att.gmes.syniverse.com> has address 173.209.208.78 $ telnet 173.209.208.78 444 Trying 173.209.208.78... Connected to 173.209.208.78. Escape character is '^]'. 220 SNPP Gateway Ready ^] telnet> quit Connection closed. $ -A On Fri Jan 20, 2023, 02:24 PM GMT, Aaron de Bruyn <mailto:aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:

txt.att.net <http://txt.att.net> is returning MX records and those machines don't have port 444 open...

Wouldn't you want to be sending something like a SNPP message instead? It's a much less convoluted delivery process and is almost real-time (no queuing).

I guess it's been a decade or so since I've dealt with emergency services and paging...is SNPP even a thing anymore?

I looked at some old code I wrote (https://github.com/darkpixel/snppsend/blob/master/more-providers <https://github.com/darkpixel/snppsend/blob/master/more-providers>), and it doesn't look like snpp.attws.net <http://snpp.attws.net> exists.

-A

On Fri Jan 20, 2023, 02:12 PM GMT, William Herrin <mailto:bill@herrin.us> wrote:

...

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:09 PM Dan Walters via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

...

Know this is a longshot, any chance anyone from the txt.att.net domain might be able to help us with what we believe is a blacklist block or possibly an outage? We deal with 911 cad dispatching and is affecting first responders so looking to see if there is a faster way to resolution.

Hi Dan,

As I understand it, txt.att.net is a low-volume courtesy service not intended for important communications. A paid service like Twilio can handle production-grade SMS delivery.

Regards, Bill Herrin

-- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 9:15 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

...

Know this is a longshot, any chance anyone from the txt.att.net domain might be able to help us with what we believe is a blacklist block or

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:09 PM Dan Walters via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: possibly an outage?

...

We deal with 911 cad dispatching and is affecting first responders so looking to see if there is a faster way to resolution.

Hi Dan,

As I understand it, txt.att.net is a low-volume courtesy service not intended for important communications. A paid service like Twilio can handle production-grade SMS delivery.

I think ChatGPT agrees with you: txt.att.net is a domain owned by AT&T, a large American telecommunications company. It is typically used to send and receive text messages, and it is generally considered a reliable resource for this purpose. However, as with any online service, it is possible for issues to arise, such as delays in delivery or errors in sending messages. It is also worth noting that txt.att.net is a free service, so it might not have the same level of security or reliability as a paid service. If you have any specific concerns or experience issues with txt.att.net, it's best to contact AT&T customer service for assistance. ;-) Warm regards, -M<

This may be the issue Here are some details on this Government protocol implemented by all Telecom Carriers. Why it is being done? To support FCC mandate for STIR/SHAKEN, an industry set of rules designed to authenticate and validate CallerID information associated with phone calls using digital signatures. SHAKEN/STIR is a framework of interconnected standards. SHAKEN/STIR are acronyms for Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using tokens (SHAKEN) and the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) standards. What is the benefit to the clients being impacted (what do they get as a result)? Provide a means to mitigate/eliminate illegally spoofed calls from RoboCallers. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jsimmons=semmes-murphey.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Tim Burke Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 8:21 AM To: Dan Walters <dwalters@omnigo.com>; nanog@nanog.org list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: txt.att.net outage? EXTERNAL EMAIL FWIW, AT&T does not suggest using the txt.att.net<http://txt.att.net> email for anything critical. In a previous role I handled public safety CAD, and AT&T (and Verizon, if I remember correctly) made it very clear that if you want to be able to send anything other than a miniscule volume of texts through the email-to-SMS gateway, you would need to pay for their enterprise messaging service. If the public safety agency/agencies in question subscribe to the FirstNet service, they should be able to reach out to their principal consultant (account team) and get a good resolution. V/r Tim ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tim=mid.net@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces+tim=mid.net@nanog.org>> on behalf of Dan Walters via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:09 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: txt.att.net<http://txt.att.net> outage? Know this is a longshot, any chance anyone from the txt.att.net<http://txt.att.net> domain might be able to help us with what we believe is a blacklist block or possibly an outage? We deal with 911 cad dispatching and is affecting first responders so looking to see if there is a faster way to resolution. Thanks, in advance. Daniel Walters Sr. Systems Admin Phone: 866.421.2374 ext.6213 Daniel.Walters@omnigo.com<mailto:Daniel.Walters@omnigo.com> [cid:image001.png@01D92C52.BEDD12C0] [cid:image002.png@01D92C52.BEDD12C0][cid:image003.png@01D92C52.BEDD12C0] [cid:image004.png@01D92C52.BEDD12C0]