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 [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
