I agree. That's going too far especially considering that from what you said, it still appears as though your host from your original request is the one labeled in the packet. So, an unsuspecting user wouldn't know that it wasn't really <a href="http://cnn.com/facebook.com/etc..">cnn.com/facebook.com/etc..</a>.. that sent them to this custom search page.<br>
<br>Suddenly, I'm very glad that I didn't switch back to Mediacom. Thankfully, Qwest just made faster speeds (up to 40 mb/s) available at my house.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Jonathan C. Bailey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jbailey@co.marshall.ia.us">jbailey@co.marshall.ia.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">BTW, they *do* seem to honor the opt-out (it's the "Web Address Error Redirect Service" option). Regardless of if an opt-out is available, I think they're going too far inspecting data and modifying it. When doing a Wireshark capture, it looks like the server you requested content from is sending the redirect (there is other "garbage" in the connection from the original server too).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
-Jon<br></div>
</blockquote></div>