On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:41 PM [EDT], George Kirikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. One thing I read in the contract concerned me, in the > Schedule B "Abuse Policy": > > "In the event of Internet Abuse event or complaint, the offending > e-mail account will be suspended and the Domain Admin will be > notified. In the event a second Internet Abuse event or complaint > occurs within a period of thirty (30) days, the entire domain will > be suspended and the Domain Admin will be notified." > > Perhaps I'm reading this too closely, but the above seems to be a > "shoot first, ask questions later" policy --- i.e. someone could > maliciously shut down one's email system simply by making a FALSE > complaint??? I think you are reading too much into this. What type of false complaint do you think would be successful? e.g. Message headers would clearly establish the origin of the message. This paragraph in the abuse policy also put me off, but for the opposite reason. I think it is far too lenient for two reasons: (1) Many spammers simply jump from one provider to the next each time they get shut down. In this case, the entire domain should be shut down on the first incident. (In fact, if a provider realizes that they have obtained such a customer, the user agreement should allow them to shut the customer down before an incident occurs.) (2) If you are going to have incremental penalties, the phrase "within a period of thirty (30) days" should be deleted. If the customer has been warned not to do something or they will be cut off, there is no excuse for doing it again, whether it is in 30 days, 90 days, or two years. Why is it okay to spam if it has been more than 30 days since the last warning? HTH -Winston
