[brlug-general] outbound email filtering

[B. Estrade]

I must admit, it is ammusing to see a redacted email forward being passed off as vindication for the original complaint.

Brett

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 03:25:34PM -0600, willhill wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at brlug.net
> http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net