While not condoning Philip Hunt's actions in this regard, we are placed in a very difficult position. Our terms and conditions state that we do not allow users to send spam from our network, however when this user is a business, and the lifeblood of their business is providing Internet services - to cut them off would mean the end of their ability to function. Because of this, I feel that it is fair to give a warning only rather than a suspension of services. I am trying to be fair to all parties - including the wider Internet community - and wanted to let everyone know where I stand. I guess we are stuck in the middle on this one. Cheers Seeby Orcon Internet - www.orcon.net.nz
At 27/10/2001 11:17, you wrote:
Strongnet operates one of New Zealand's most advanced and fully automated Domain Name and Webhosting systems.
And appears to be a customer of orcon.net.nz whose terms contain published at
http://www.orcon.net.nz/support/terms/termsandconditions.html
contain:
"Users are not permitted to send multiple unsolicited email (Spam) to single or multiple users including, but not limited to, advertising email."
"Any failure to obey these rules or if a specific complaint has been made from any person or company about your activities we will investigate (in conjunction with the police if necessary). We will then make a decision as to the severity of your actions. This may result in a warning. If we consider the breach to be sufficiently serious (at our discretion) you agree that we may disconnect your services immediately without notice or liability to you."
This email is a specific complaint in regard to the bulk UCE sent by strongnet to .nz registrants who are currently customers of Asia On-line.
I believe the severity of the action demands immediate disconnection. There is no way an ISP can reasonably claim ignorance in such matters.
Other internet providers who endorse this complaint and recommended action, please wave your hand.
Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2DAY INTERNET LIMITED -/-
2day.com - The professional choice for automated web hosting services ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
At 27/10/2001 12:44, you wrote:
While not condoning Philip Hunt's actions in this regard, we are placed in a very difficult position.
Indeed, if you cut them off you loose income.
Our terms and conditions state that we do not allow users to send spam from our network, however when this user is a business, and the lifeblood of their business is providing Internet services - to cut them off would mean the end of their ability to function.
Personally I see no problem with this consequence.
Because of this, I feel that it is fair to give a warning only rather than a suspension of services.
How about you *require* them to do the following in leiu of being terminated [1] Publish a public apology to Asia Online for their unethical actions [2] Make a statement that they will never again send bulk UCE
I am trying to be fair to all parties - including the wider Internet community
To be fair, you need to be firm. Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2DAY INTERNET LIMITED -/- 2day.com - The professional choice for automated web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
While not condoning Philip Hunt's actions in this regard, we are placed in a very difficult position.
Our terms and conditions state that we do not allow users to send spam from our network, however when this user is a business, and the lifeblood of their business is providing Internet services - to cut them off would mean the end of their ability to function.
Because of this, I feel that it is fair to give a warning only rather than a suspension of services.
I disagree. This person knows that spamming is frowned upon. He's in the industry. He calls his commpany an "ISP" IN THE SPAM. Slapping him with a wet bus ticket does NOTHING. Cutting his feed will teach him a BADLY NEEDED lesson, and it will also send a STRONG MESSAGE to any other "ISP's" out there that like to try and poach clients (Hi Mike!).
I am trying to be fair to all parties - including the wider Internet community - and wanted to let everyone know where I stand. I guess we are stuck in the middle on this one.
No you're not. Show us you have the nads to help clean up this industry. Pull the plug - it's spelt out in your T&C and since your client is an ISP, he can't feign unawareness. We'll stick by you. You're not pond scum, so don't side with them. -- Andrew P. Gardner barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP? We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare? Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Andy Gardner wrote:
We'll stick by you. You're not pond scum, so don't side with them.
I don't like to be cynical, but say Orcon did what you suggest, and booted Strongnet for spamming... I don't know how much money it would be for Orcon, but I'm guessing that these days, every penny counts, so losing Strongnet would hurt. Also, I don't think it would take very long for Strongnet to find a new home with a different provider. -- Regards, Juha --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Andy Gardner wrote:
Cutting his feed will teach him a BADLY NEEDED lesson, and it will also send a STRONG MESSAGE to any other "ISP's" out there that like to try and poach clients (Hi Mike!).
Condering the identities of 2 of the other parties I have heard of then cutting them off will get rid of a large percentage of the NZ Internet. Since this is not going to happen it's not really fair to impose a similar penality against strongnet just cause fewer people will be inconvenienced. However every ISP here has upstreams even if they are overseas, whats more every connection agreement I have seen allows the upstream ISP to cut off spammers. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
At 27/10/2001 13:03, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Andy Gardner wrote:
Cutting his feed will teach him a BADLY NEEDED lesson, and it will also send a STRONG MESSAGE to any other "ISP's" out there that like to try and poach clients (Hi Mike!).
Condering the identities of 2 of the other parties I have heard of then cutting them off will get rid of a large percentage of the NZ Internet.
Lets work with facts only. If anybody has evidence of bulk UCE from others, lets see it. Even if getting them terminated isn't doable, there are other things we can do to have them think before taking similar action in the future. - PWM "Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something!" Thomas A. Edison --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Seeby - Orcon Internet wrote:
Our terms and conditions state that we do not allow users to send spam from our network, however when this user is a business, and the lifeblood of their business is providing Internet services - to cut them off would mean the end of their ability to function.
And? So? Presumably they thought about that before violating your terms and conditions. If not, perhaps they should hire a new marketing manager/CEO.
Because of this, I feel that it is fair to give a warning only rather than a suspension of services.
Insufficient. I think you should require them to apologise in a public forum, as well as state that they will not be doing this again. If they're not prepared to do this, do you want them as a customer?
I am trying to be fair to all parties - including the wider Internet community - and wanted to let everyone know where I stand. I guess we are stuck in the middle on this one.
I think you're looking at your bottom line, basically, if you only issue a warning. We're not supposed to even be letting dial-up customers (who may not know any better) get away with this sort of thing, and you're proposing to let off with a wrist-slap an ISP who does the same thing? Lame. JSR -- John S Russell | Smile Operations Manager | Nod Attica/Callplus NZ | Build it. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On 27 Oct 2001 at 12:44, Seeby - Orcon Internet wrote:
Our terms and conditions state that we do not allow users to send spam from our network, however when this user is a business, and the lifeblood of their business is providing Internet services - to cut them off would mean the end of their ability to function.
But if it was an individual, you'd cut them off?
Because of this, I feel that it is fair to give a warning only rather than a suspension of services.
I am trying to be fair to all parties - including the wider Internet community - and wanted to let everyone know where I stand. I guess we are stuck in the middle on this one.
The above two paragraphs can be considered fair only if you treat all customers the same. The big ones shouldn't be treated any differently than the little ones. Of course economic interests will alway intervene. -- Dan Langille The FreeBSD Diary - http://freebsddiary.org/ - practical examples --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Dan Langille wrote:
The above two paragraphs can be considered fair only if you treat all customers the same. The big ones shouldn't be treated any differently than the little ones. Of course economic interests will alway intervene.
Violence is probably the only option here. Seeby and Co can't be expected to saw off the branch they're sitting on, yet they have to take firm action against the spammer. Pity then that Orcon omitted the crucial Cricket Bat Clause in their customer T&Cs. -- Regards, Juha --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 03:36:09PM +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Dan Langille wrote:
The above two paragraphs can be considered fair only if you treat all customers the same. The big ones shouldn't be treated any differently than the little ones. Of course economic interests will alway intervene.
Violence is probably the only option here. Seeby and Co can't be expected to saw off the branch they're sitting on, yet they have to take firm action against the spammer.
The way forward is clear. Orcon should spam all strongnet's customers, then cut them off. Everybody wins :) Joe --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (8)
-
Andy Gardner
-
Dan Langille
-
J S Russell
-
Joe Abley
-
Juha Saarinen
-
Peter Mott
-
Seeby - Orcon Internet
-
Simon Lyall