popper
join:2006-05-30
Baton Rouge,
1 edit | [ALL] 404 Page
Is this something new?
»finder.cox.net/main?AddInType=Bd···chQuery=
Edit: Using Firefox v2.0.0.6 |
|
TheNerdGirl
join:2006-12-09 | Cox's redirect page. When you mistyped an URL, instead of a 404 page, you get a Cox redirect page. Cox start doing that sometime last year. It's nothing new. |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ | reply to popper
Info to Opt Out
»support.cox.com/sdccommon/asp/co···18ceb58d |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to popper
Cox's new way of making money off your back without kicking anything back to you.
change your dns to 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 to get rid of it.
for those opendns fanbois: they also have redirects!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
almex
Premium
join:2001-09-18
Henderson, NV
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| said by dvd536  :change your dns to 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 to get rid of it. for those opendns fanbois: they also have redirects! It appears as though "CoxFinder" has been enabled in the Phoenix market recently. Upon first sight of it, I immediately changed the DNS settings in my router to the servers mentioned by dvd536 . |
|
popper
join:2006-05-30
Baton Rouge, | reply to popper
Thanks for the replies.
It may have been implemented anywhere from 5-12 months ago, yesterday was the first I can recall viewing that page.
Oh well no biggie, using firefox w/ coxBlocker :] |
|
nmlobo
join:2002-11-02
Yorktown, VA | You may also use the DNS servers identified by Cox on the OPT Out page...... 68.105.29.13 or 68.105.28.13 |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
| using cox's DNS servers is evil. same with any isp's.
DVD has the right answer and use the alt DNS servers.
it's too bad the average person doesn't know.
-Rob
--
»www.cband.info - unique radio you won't find elsewhere. join the chat and join our growing family. |
|
stanley_qaz
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Gilbert, AZ
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
·Cox HSI
| reply to dvd536
Sure OpenDNS has redirects, I don't mind that as I get a lot of good out of their other services and they have to pay for them somehow. Actually, I think I'm becoming fond of them since it is faster to click on the redirect than to fix my many typos and reload the page.
If you just want naked DNS why not run your own, comes with most any Linux or BSD system and you can download a decent DNS server for Windows from www.ntcanuck.com last time I looked. |
|
popper
join:2006-05-30
Baton Rouge,
1 edit | reply to popper
I thank you for the feedback, but seriously, this is only the one page and since it's relative to this board I thought I'd share. Blocking that site through FF works fine. I get the standard FF error window mid screen. Once I cannot resolve it in that fashion I do know where to chime in for advice :thumbs up
Thanks
EDIT: TYPO |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to stanley_qaz
said by stanley_qaz :Sure OpenDNS has redirects, I don't mind that as I get a lot of good out of their other services and they have to pay for them somehow. Actually, I think I'm becoming fond of them since it is faster to click on the redirect than to fix my many typos and reload the page. If you just want naked DNS why not run your own, comes with most any Linux or BSD system and you can download a decent DNS server for Windows from www.ntcanuck.com last time I looked. isn't that port blocked by cox?
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
stanley_qaz
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Gilbert, AZ | It (53) isn't on the Cox blocked port list and my DNS server is reporting no problems getting to the OpenDNS servers. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by stanley_qaz :It (53) isn't on the Cox blocked port list and my DNS server is reporting no problems getting to the OpenDNS servers. Thats 53 OUTBOUND. i think INBOUND is blocked just like port 80 block is only INBOUND.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
stanley_qaz
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Gilbert, AZ | Ok, now I'm confused... Why does it matter if Cox is blocking port 53 inbound? How does that impact running your own DNS server in any way.
How did you test to find that it was blocked? |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by stanley_qaz :Ok, now I'm confused... Why does it matter if Cox is blocking port 53 inbound? How does that impact running your own DNS server in any way. How did you test to find that it was blocked? By default, BIND, at least, sends and receives on UDP 53. Obviously it can function in other ways.
Besides, running your own DNS server isn't bright unless you know how to secure it, and it (BIND, at least) doesn't come secure by default.
Cox really should just be providing DNS service, rather than some other quasi-DNSish service. I'm tired of them, and other ISPs, breaking my applications by returning results for nonexistent domains. As much as I like the speed, I'm looking into wireless service as we speak. I want an ISP, not something more akin to AOL.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
lra
join:2005-04-04
Omaha, NE
| said by wierdo :Cox really should just be providing DNS service, rather than some other quasi-DNSish service. I'm tired of them, and other ISPs, breaking my applications by returning results for nonexistent domains. As much as I like the speed, I'm looking into wireless service as we speak. I want an ISP, not something more akin to AOL. Maybe a SOHO COX Business account is what you want?
I have been a happy user for several years.
1) Unfiltered DNS
2) Unfiltered ports with servers allowed
3) Static IP's
4) non-residential SMTP relay
5) good tech support
Lonnie |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| I don't need any of those things, exclusive of real DNS service, of course. For the moment, I use another ISP's DNS service, although I'm opening myself up to cache poisoning attacks by doing so.
Besides, between the slower speed tiers and higher prices, why should I pay extra if I don't want or need to run a server? If I wanted to serve, I'd do it from my colocated box which is sitting on OC-48s to Cox, AT&T, and Level3, along with an OC-192 of Cogent bandwidth. I already pay enough for that, thanks.
It's just ridiculous that ISPs can't get it through their thick skulls that there's more to the Internet than web browsers. Making my SSH client (for one example) return "connection refused" instead of "host not found" is at best confusing for me. When it's an automated system doing that, it's worse. If I hadn't thought ahead and not only checked for the continued existence of A records for my hosts, but also the associated IP, my network monitor wouldn't know if Cox's DNS servers were suddenly unable to resolve my domains.
NXDOMAIN is the only proper response to a query for a nonexistent domain. (except for SERVFAIL, if there is some issue with the resolver that prevents it from resolving the domain) An A record is not correct behavior. It also sucks when I send mail to a nonexistent domain. It makes my local SMTP server waste resources rather than reject it at the outset with a meaningful error message.
In principle, it's just as bad as sending spurious RST packets to disrupt BitTorrent. Sadly, there are few people who care enough to raise a stink, unlike when they try to cut off the precious unauthorized movie/music/game/tv show copying.
Oh, and Cox's residential tech support is fine, if you can convince them at the outset that you know what you're talking about and you've already gone through the steps they're telling you to go through.
And lastly, why on earth should I support a company that refuses to provide such simple things as working DNS servers? Even if I can pay more money for less speed and get them? They make my life hard when they break existing configurations. As I've stated before in other threads on this topic, I don't care if they give users an install CD that either sets alternate not-really-DNS servers in Windows or sets up a BHO or Firefox extension to achieve the same effect. That doesn't make more work for me.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
stanley_qaz
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Gilbert, AZ | This is going nowhere, you won't answer my questions and are now ranting about something that nmlobo answered in his post back a ways.
"You may also use the DNS servers identified by Cox on the OPT Out page...... 68.105.29.13 or 68.105.28.13" |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to lra
said by lra :said by wierdo :Cox really should just be providing DNS service, rather than some other quasi-DNSish service. I'm tired of them, and other ISPs, breaking my applications by returning results for nonexistent domains. As much as I like the speed, I'm looking into wireless service as we speak. I want an ISP, not something more akin to AOL. Maybe a SOHO COX Business account is what you want? I have been a happy user for several years. 1) Unfiltered DNS 2) Unfiltered ports with servers allowed 3) Static IP's 4) non-residential SMTP relay 5) good tech support This is what we all had a few years ago now we have to pay $289/month for it? I DON'T THINK SO!
Why should shitty nonservice be the norm unless one wants to be raped just like businesses are.
best effort my butt, its more like no effort and this isn't directed at only cox, its like this no matter who your provider is!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by dvd536 :best effort my butt, its more like no effort and this isn't directed at only cox, its like this no matter who your provider is! Just to be fair SBC/AT&T is pretty good, if you can live with whatever speed they're capable of providing you. They let you opt out of port 25 blocking, charge a reasonable price for static IP service (less than $20/mo extra), can delegate reverse DNS to you, don't do stupid DNS redirection (yet), and have a very solid network.
If they were able to provide me more than 3Mbps, I'd probably have stuck with them. They were willing to do everything possible short of digging up the drop to my apartment and replacing it, which would have involved a quarter mile of trenching, to get me 6Mbps service. The tech spent two hours testing every available pair in an attempt to get it working.
Oh, and they honor QoS bits. Very nice for VoIP.
Of course, they saddle new customers with PPPoE and have abysmal front line phone support, so it's really a mixed bag there. What I wouldn't give for the ISDN guys to be in charge of that...
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
