Re: (UPDATE) Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)

[James <haesu () towardex com>]

As more and more of the "facts" come to light, please do some research before
you accuse an ASN a SpamBone just by looking at spamhaus & Co. lists.

They are a budget-fitting dedicated server + colocation service provider with
over 1500 servers on the network premise. They've lacked certain planning that
was necessary to actively identify and defeat spammers in the initial time. They
did institute plans and remedies to resolve spam issues and they've canned many
number of spam-hosting customers in the recent months -- that's a fact. Most of
their spam-prone customers are from 1-2 years ago, signed up when they've lacked
resources to deal with such an abuse, which since then they've been working on
correcting their problems.

Just how do you clean up your whole 1500-server network to have zero-spammers
overnight? Kick out your customer whenever you see ^H^H^H^Hspamreport sent to
abuse@ without taking any time to investigate the cause and who committed it?
   Remember, most of dedicated server providers (i.e. ThePlanet, ServePath,
Managed.com, ev1servers, etc), have majority of their customer base being
web hosting companies, who also provide end-user services to their own 
customers.

I would be quite pissed if I run a dedicated-server based web hosting company
and my provider just shuts off my box after receiving an abuse, without even
giving me a week to identify which one of my hundreds of web site hosted clients
have committed abuse.

Believe me, if Pegasus was active spamming-friendly company, NAC would've kicked
them out the door a long time ago. NAC *does* have full time and responsible
abuse department.

-J

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 06:38:07AM -0500, Doug White wrote:
> As more and more of the "facts" come to light, it appears that NAC has brought
> much of this on themselves, and will need to dedicate the legal resources to
> counter the claims of Pegasus, in fact their own survival may well depend on
> it.  I have to admit I have little sympathy for them or any provider who hosts
> spam operations.
>
> Historically, NAC.net has received spam reports by the tens of thousands, and
> have consistently did not much more than pass out rhetoric.  Their contract
> with pegasus, as well as their publically published Terms of Service were
> rarely, if at all, enforced, which appears to have come home to bite them.
>
> Pegasus applied for and wants to have direct access via direct allocations,
> probably for the simple reason of allowing themselves to become a bullet-proof
> spam host operation.  Obviously spamming is very profitable, and they wish to
> stay on the cash train awhile longer.  NAC likewise did nothing to interrupt
> their own revenue source despite the number of complaints.
>
> Any new carrier that picks them up is going to bring upon themselves a "bucket
> of hot water" given the history of this operation.
>
> Whle they may not enter into evidence the multiple violations of AUP and TOS
> they would have to show that they attempted to enforce the contracts, which
> they simply did not do.  I doubt there is a judge anywhere who would not
> recognize and understand the term "spam" and its effects on the carrier's
> operations.
>
> Hopefully this whole affair will be a wake-up call to providers who put revenue
> ahead of sound policy enforcement, assuming they have enforceable policies in
> effect.

-- 
James Jun                                            TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Technical Lead                        Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing
james () towardex com                  Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services
cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net