Cox and email revisited

On Saturday January 31 2004 6:48 pm, Derek Neighbors <derek@gnue.org> wr=
ote:
*v*Subject: Re: Cox and email revisited
*v*From: Derek Neighbors <derek@gnue.org>
*v*To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
*v*Organization: GNU Enterprise
*v*Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:01:47 -0700
*v*Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us

*v*On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 10:37, Augie Grayfox wrote:
*v*
*v*>     Recipient: <xxxxx@xxxxxx.com>
*v*>     Reason:    xxxxx@xxxxxx.com prohibited. We do not relay
*v*>=3D20
*v*> Please reply to Postmaster@cox.net
*v*> if you feel this message to be in error. ]

*v*
*v*The reason they should have given is you are trying to relay mail. A
*v*tactic that most spammers have used for years. They consider you as a
*v*spammer and should block your mail. I certainly would if I were them.=
=3D20
*v*Relays are bad news and cause other customers grief.
*v*
How the HELL is sending an email from my @cox address to my client's @xxx=
=2Ecom=20
address be considered relaying?
I thought that was just emailing somebody?

*v*
*v*They like many monopolies have loads of issues. However I don't think
*v*blocking what looks like a spammer is one of them.

By your reasoning and apparantly cox' anybody that sends ANY email is rel=
aying=20
therefore a spammer
PULLLEEEEASE get real!
The only reason I mentioned this was to basically rant about crappie tech=
=20
support that seems to unduly single out Linux users.=20
I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers for badmouthing anybody's favorite IS=
P and=20
no I'm not switching from cox, been with them for years. I may continue t=
o=20
use them, but that don't mean I have to like they're discriminatory treat=
ment=20
of non m$ users.

*v*> Hell of a way to run a railroad!
--=20
Augie Grayfox
grayfox78 at cox dot net

"When things go wrong, don't go with them" Anonymous