DaveUSNret
Premium
join:2002-02-03
Yorkville, IL
 ·Comcast
| [ALL] Email being deleted without notification
For those that don't read he Cox internal newsgroups a new issue seems to have arisen. Apparently Cox's spam filtering system is now deleting outgoing emails with suspect links, without notifying the originator that there is a problem.
While attempting to cut down on the amount of spam being sent from compromised machines is a laudable goal one would think that deleting possibly valid email without giving the originator the courtesy of a notification is unacceptable. Unless a recipient is expecting an email and notifies the sender that it was not recieved there is no way to know that Cox has decided that your email is spam.
Wouldn't it be better for the oft hailed Cox Abuse folks to work at chasing down the zombie machines instead of simply dumping email?
--
Dave EEMC USN(ret) Most computer problems are caused by a loose nutbetween the chair and the keyboard. |
|
dkoert
join:2001-11-20
Wichita, KS
clubs:
1 edit | Link to an article appearing in a local (Wichita, KS) website regarding the problems with Cox's new undisclosed email policy:
|
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
|  reply to DaveUSNret
Thanks for posting, I wasn't aware they were doing this. What a boneheaded idea Cox. I can understand (although I don't particularly endorse it) the redirecting phishing sites thru DNS, but this is one step overboard. 
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
stanley_qaz
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Gilbert, AZ
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
·Cox HSI
| reply to DaveUSNret
I didn't realize it was something wrong, I'm new here and random deletions have really messed up my spam reporting to spamcop.net and a couple other places.
I finally had to get access to an outside SMTP server to get my reports out. Sure hope the cox folks don't start blocking smtp on other than port 25!
I'd guess that getting them to white list a few remote servers that want spam would be a difficult project. |
|
ElectricOkra
join:2005-03-24
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to DaveUSNret
Simply amazing...
That article brings up some great points about the many ways that this policy is plain wrong... Cox could (and should) get into some serious trouble over this... |
|
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ | reply to DaveUSNret
First they block our outgoing SMTP port 25 access, now this. Geez guys, one or the other, at least give us a choice!
--
[[Your signature here]] |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by nightdesigns  :First they block our outgoing SMTP port 25 access, now this. Geez guys, one or the other, at least give us a choice! Deleting suspect outbound email is just plain stupid. Especially since that tends to gum up spam reporting. Whether one reports through SpamCop, or just works up one's own reports, this Cox policy makes it impossible to file abuse notifies to interested parties.
Blocking port 25 will be the wave of the future. With RFC 2476 in place, and the SMTPS (port 465 w/ SSL) standard, more third party mail services will be using either port 465, or port 587; or both. At some point, message submission through port 25 will have to come to an end.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to dkoert
said by dkoert :Link to an article appearing in a local (Wichita, KS) website regarding the problems with Cox's new undisclosed email policy: I have two problems with the story. First (as others have noted) the writer seems to be under the impression that all email MUST be submitted via Port 25 and that submission via 465 (SMTPS) and 587 (MSA) does not exist. Most Hosting sites support 587 (or some other non-25 port such as 26 or 2525 to bypass Port25-Blocking Connectivity providers) and sometimes also 465 yet the writer states:
Cox blocks all network traffic from residential customer IP addresses going outbound on port 25 (SMTP) at their routers and requires all email sent from their Cox High Speed Internet connection to be routed through a Cox SMTP server. The filter of port 25 impacts those Cox customers who use third-party mail servers including mail services provided by their personal domain hosting company. Any software configured to use an SMTP server other than smtp.*.cox.net to deliver email directly to a recipient's server will not work. Customers using third-party email services must configure their email clients to use smtp.*.cox.net to send outbound email, thus denying them the services they are paying for elsewhere. My 2nd gripe is that if you object to this process you should complain about it as follows:However, you should still let your voice be heard and express to Cox Communications along with local and state regulators that you will not tolerate the continued infringement of your consumer and constitutional rights.
* E-mail Cox Communications: abuse@cox.net
* E-mail The Better Business Bureau: info@wichita.bbb.org
* E-mail Sedgwick County District Attorney: consumer@sedgwick.gov
* E-mail Kansas Attorney General: cprotect@ksag.org
* E-mail Federal Communications Commission: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Maybe I am being cynical or paranoid but given the fact that they are silently bit-bucketing outgoing email that they disapprove of when sent via their servers, what good does it do to try to sent your complaints to any of the above (except for the first) when the server can [will?] be told that they should be deleted or redirected to an Cox email address for review and later retaliation. |
|
BoBraxton
join:2005-08-01
Alexandria, VA
| It IS a bad idea, I agree (deleting outgoing email without notification). We are the paying customer(s) and Cox should respect those who pay.
When I saw this topic, I thought it was a reference to what just happened to me. Cox deleted an entire email account ("dormant" for 120 days) and stated that they had sent notification. Trouble is, I use all seven allowed email accounts and my main ones are not the main account. When Cox sends notification (a part of what this thread suggests) they should be required to send it to all seven activated email inboxes, not just to the "main" administrator one, which I see as controlling everything but not one that I regularly log into (half the other six accounts are for benefit of spouse, who also pays; three for me plus one main email inbox). |
|
mrwick
join:2006-09-03 |  reply to DaveUSNret
does anyone know what the extensive tests were, and what the data and results are from those tests? It would be nice to justify all these impending lawsuits with real evidence |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to dkoert
I hope this will not be taken as a defense of Cox policies. Filtering outbound email should not be done by silently dropping it. If Cox must filter outbound spam, they should return the filtered email to the Cox user who sent it; with an explanation of why it is being returned.
However, the article shows a serious lack of understanding; of anything.
quote:
However, you should still let your voice be heard and express to Cox Communications along with local and state regulators that you will not tolerate the continued infringement of your consumer and constitutional rights.
A non-government entity can only infringe your U.S. Constitutional rights in certain, limited ways. As an example, I ejected two customers from a store where I worked. I was acually in the proccess of dialing 9-1-1 in the one case, when the guy realized that I was serious, and just left. I was within my rights in both cases. As long as my reason is not related to unlawful discrimination, it is my call, and tough luck for the idiot who doesn't understand that.
In the case of Cox, unless they are monitoring your email to 'smtp.gmail.com', or 'smtp.mail.yahoo.com', and blocking outbound spam to them, Cox is _not_ "censoring" email. And, even if they were, all you need to do is pitch them for another provider who doesn't. The author of this article needs to get a serious grip on what he is talking about.
For any Cox user who doesn't want to run the Cox email spam filter gauntlet, GMail offers SMTP access; either port 465 with SSL, or port 587 with STARTTLS (often shortened to just TLS). If you can read German, you can (I think still) sign up for service with GMX Mail. Free SMTP access; port 587 with STARTTLS. You can get a free Yahoo! Mail account through the Australian, or UK branch (maybe New Zealand, as well), and get free SMTP access through port 587 (no STARTTLS with Yahoo! accounts). I use 'smtp.mail.yahoo.co.jp' on occasion, but you have to be able to read enough Japanese to navigate the site. From time to time, MyRealBox opens up for sign ups. It is a long running beta version of a Novell mail program. They apparently only want a specific number of users, so they close sign up when they reach that number, and open up again if they drop below some threshold. They use port 465 with SSL.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Las Vegas, NV
| said by NormanS :if Cox must filter outbound spam, they should return the filtered email to the Cox user who sent it; with an explanation of why it is being returned. That is actually not such a good idea because it could be so easily exploited as a denial of service attack.
All I would need to do to make your life really miserable is send a few million messages with your return address so the mail server would send them back to you notifying you that they had been blocked.
I must confess, that I am not in the loop on this specific issue so I can't offer any insight but I would like to post the following for those who are looking for the right place to voice their concerns about any of our products or policies.
Cox Corporate Customer Relations Complaint line phone numbers and email:
1-888-566-7751
404-269-8094
CoxCorp.CustomerRelations@cox.com |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | I am not sure, then, that I really understand what is up?
We are not talking about some email coming in to the Cox MX server, where Cox accepted the email for delivery, then decided to send it back to the putative sender. That is bad, because the "Return-Path:" is always forged in spam.
We are talking about email sent by a Cox customer through the Cox message submission server. The Cox message submission server should know the Cox customer connecting for an SMTP session. There shouldn't be a "backscatter" DOS, unless the Cox customer is sending abusive quantities of spam; in which case, the customer should have his email privilege revoked.
Outbound email does not go through MX servers, it goes through Message Submission servers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
| reply to DaveUSNret
This is censorship plain and simple. Why cox would do this is beyond me. If they did take spam seriously they would place decent filters that are regularly updated.
If you guys need e-mail look elsewhere. Look for a host that has alternate SMTP ports available.
Too bad cox is doing this. At least stop blocking port 25 and let us decide what e-mails go to our inbox.
-Rob
--
Looking for something different to listen to? »www.rfdradio.info is your answer! |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by robertfl :Too bad cox is doing this. At least stop blocking port 25 and let us decide what e-mails go to our inbox. Blocking port 25 is another matter, entirely, than filtering spam on outbound email. Outbound spam filtering shouldn't be done.
OTOH, nobody needs access to port 25 outbound, unless they are running a mail server on a static IP address with proper rDNS.
Message Submission, the sending of email to an SMTP server for really, does not have to happen on port 25. RFC 2476 defined port 587 as a message submission port. SMTPS on port 465 is another, de facto, standard. I have a service which would accept message submission on either port 2525, or port 10025, if I needed it.
Leave port 25 to the mail relay servers, and, if your mail host doesn't use it, tell them to use port 587 for message submission.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
