[brlug-general] outbound email filtering

[willhill]

Thank you for looking at the problem because I'd like to have good service 
from Cox.  I followed advice from BRLUG members and now use Google's SMTP 
server.  That fixed my immediate technical problem but the larger trust 
issue is unresolved.  Because it's Cox's intention to let third parties 
monitor every word of every email I write, I'll be happier when my friends 
and family all have email clients with easy to use encryption.  Drastic 
measures from Cox will be required to restore the trust of anyone who thinks 
through what I noticed. I want your company to champion the interests of  
customers rather than cave in to the demands of other companies.

First, Cox will have to overcome some basic communications issues.  I've never 
been able to find adequate explanations on the Cox site for changes in 
network policies.  Worse, there's no transparent way for cutsomers to 
ask questions or tell you what they think.  

Dell's Idea Storm web site is a good example of user feedback that has been 
good for the parent company.  A similar site for Cox would give you a better 
idea of how to serve your customers.  

I agree that spam is a problem but don't like the way Cox is dealing with it.  
Do you really expect customers to trust an unnamed vendor with all of their 
mail?  Don't you think that people would like the ability to opt out of your 
filter and employ one of their own?  Providing a service is commendable.  
Mandating a filter is outrageous and prone to abuse which we now know is out 
of Cox's control.  Do Cox have any way to insure the vendor is not selling 
customer information to companies like ChoicePoint?  Does Cox know if they are 
participating in illegal wiretaps for corporate or political suppression?  Is 
that the kind of world you want?  In any case, Cox is not addressing the 
root cause of the spam problem which is insecure software.  Cox should 
recommend free software to their customers and cut off machines that are 
being used to abuse others.  If Cox continues to ignore the root problem  
they are doomed to a never ending cycles of costly failure.  Everything else 
has failed and other half measures will do the same.

There are many other issues where Cox should know how customers feel. 
Cox inherited a free and open network from AtHome and every step away from 
that bothered me.  On several occasions, I've been bothered enough to put my 
name on a list and risk retaliation.  I don't know how many other people 
those steps bothered nor, I suspect, do you.  

I'm sure that my opinion is shared by many more Cox customers. It's not 
just LUG members and computer enthusiasts that are aggravated.  When I ask 
around, people roll their eyes and tell me they get error messages "all the 
time" which they never bother to read.  Most people route around the problem 
some other way regardless of the details.  Other companies will offer what 
Cox does not and your customers will think of Cox as some kind of impediment.  
People who care are doing much more and that's why there are Congressional  
investigations into wiretapping and interfering with network traffic.  

It is not enough for Cox to complain that others will punish them for standing 
up for customers.  Giving in to those others only increases their power 
over Cox.  By fighting them, you are not just standing up for customers you 
are protecting your company's reputation and future.  If Cox does not do 
this, Cox does not live up to its exclusive franchise obligations and pressure 
will mount for competition or replacement.  Open spectrum promisses a real 
communications revolution that will obsolete expensive cable networks like 
Cox's and most of the companies that are now exerting pressure on Cox to 
violate customer privacy and restrict customer's ability to share.  Those 
violations are so contrary to the mission of a communications company that 
you must do everything possible to avoid even the perception that you 
cooperting with the violators.  If Cox is to be trusted in the future they 
must do what's right now.

I realize that these issues are beyond your power but you asked about my 
concerns.  Likewise, you owe me no apology unless you are an advocate of port 
blocks and whole network filters.  If you are an advocate of such things, I 
hope that you will one day change your mind.

I'm forwarding this to the BRLUG and CCCC lists because I think they are 
interested.  You might want to join the BRLUG if you are not already a member 
and speak for Cox and yourself there.  Your name and some of the content below 
has been removed for what little protection that offers.

On Friday 01 February 2008 1:28 pm, you wrote:
> Mr. Hill,
>
> My name is NAME_REMOVED and I work REMOVED at
> Cox Communications.  REMOVED I was recently made aware of an article on
> slashdot.org regarding blocking of an outbound message containing your
> IP address.  While we do scan our outbound messages for spam related
> content, it is never our intention to filter out legitimate email.  The
> message containing your IP address was blocked by our anti-spam
> application and should not have occurred. REMOVED MENTION OF UNNAMED 
> ANTISPAM  VENDOR. 
>
> As you know, spam filtering is a necessity.  If our inbound spam rate is
> high then our customers suffer.   Likewise, if our outbound spam rate is
> high, then our mail servers get blocked by other email providers and our
> customers suffer from that action as well.  Naturally we strive to
> filter out both inbound and outbound spam without false positives.  I
> apologize for this error and will work to make sure that this does not
> occur again.
>
> Please do not hesitate to email me if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Sincerely,
> NAME REMOVED