Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
--- jpleger@gmail.com wrote: I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related to the sites. ------------------------------------- "Why software piracy might actually be good for companies." Folks should clean their own house before pointing fingers at others... scott
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- jpleger@gmail.com wrote: I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related to the sites. -------------------------------------
"Why software piracy might actually be good for companies."
Folks should clean their own house before pointing fingers at others...
My house may not be clean right now, but the cleaner is coming tomorrow. However, filth from their house is making my house smell. I am very happy they are willing to clean up, but it still smells for some reason. Enough with analogies, you are making this discussion into a hostile environment for them to reply in. What are you afraid of, anyway? Are you running a bullet-proof hosting farm?
scott
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- jpleger@gmail.com wrote: I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related to the sites. -------------------------------------
"Why software piracy might actually be good for companies."
Folks should clean their own house before pointing fingers at others...
My house may not be clean right now, but the cleaner is coming tomorrow. However, filth from their house is making my house smell. I am very happy they are willing to clean up, but it still smells for some reason.
Enough with analogies, you are making this discussion into a hostile environment for them to reply in.
What are you afraid of, anyway? Are you running a bullet-proof hosting farm? Why should an ISP provide proof of the good behavior of their clients ? Or in your conuntry you're considered guilty until proven otherwise ?
Why should an ISP provide proof of the good behavior of their clients ? Or in your conuntry you're considered guilty until proven otherwise ?
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large punishment may be exacted (note: it's innocent until determined to be very likely guilty in criminal cases, innocent until probably guilty in civil cases); here, that is not the case. They have a history of abuse; it's fair to be suspicious of them (why did they let the abuse last so long?) and ask for an example of a legitimate client. If they have a few, it should be easy to find one willing to be used as an example.
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 list-nanog@pwns.ms wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large punishment may be exacted
Depeering is not a large punishment? In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West redux. But even in a court of law in a criminal case a defense must be made, otherwise the least sort of evidence of culpability can produce conviction; the defendant must at least put on a defense to invalidate the culpatory evidence. So when culpatory evidence is presented in these cases, requesting exculpatory evidence is very reasonable. Lack of a defense in a civil case will virtually guarantee a favorable judgment for the plaintiff, however.
Lamar Owen wrote:
Lack of a defense in a civil case will virtually guarantee a favorable judgment for the plaintiff, however.
Networks (at least in most countries) are 100% private entities who can de-peer whoever they want for whatever reason they want.
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 list-nanog@pwns.ms wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large punishment may be exacted
Depeering is not a large punishment?
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West redux.
You are confused. Connecting to my network is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You lose a criminal case, you lose rights (e.g. freedom to walk outside). Disconnecting you from my network is not denying any of your rights. There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network. You don't want to prove it, that's your right, just as it is my right to not connect to you. Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so? For _any_ reason, including not showing me "legit" customers, political affiliation, or even the color of your hat? -- TTFN, patrick
But even in a court of law in a criminal case a defense must be made, otherwise the least sort of evidence of culpability can produce conviction; the defendant must at least put on a defense to invalidate the culpatory evidence. So when culpatory evidence is presented in these cases, requesting exculpatory evidence is very reasonable.
Lack of a defense in a civil case will virtually guarantee a favorable judgment for the plaintiff, however.
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West redux. Connecting to my network is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You lose a criminal case, you lose rights (e.g. freedom to walk outside). Disconnecting you from my network is not denying any of your rights.
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network. You don't want to prove it, that's your right, just as it is my right to not connect to you.
Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so? For _any_ reason, including not showing me "legit" customers, political affiliation, or even the color of your hat?
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end 2008.12.31. expect change. randy
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end 2008.12.31. expect change.
randy
SBC end-date is 2009-Dec-31. Randy
On Sep 11, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West redux. Connecting to my network is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You lose a criminal case, you lose rights (e.g. freedom to walk outside). Disconnecting you from my network is not denying any of your rights.
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network. You don't want to prove it, that's your right, just as it is my right to not connect to you.
Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so? For _any_ reason, including not showing me "legit" customers, political affiliation, or even the color of your hat?
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end 2008.12.31. expect change.
The fact there is a temporary exception to the rule for two providers in the US who agreed to the exception for reasons other than peering / transit does not mean the rule is invalid. As for (some of?) the exceptions expiring at the end of this calendar year, I'm not at all certain it will be a sea change. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not the center of the Internet any more. And even if it were, those providers - even the two combined - are not the center of the US Internet. Besides, wouldn't that just prove the rule anyway? :) The 'Net has become much more egalitarian. I would think that you of all people Randy would applaud the internationalization and flattening of the Internet. -- TTFN, patrick
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end 2008.12.31. expect change. The fact there is a temporary exception to the rule for two providers in the US who agreed to the exception for reasons other than peering / transit does not mean the rule is invalid.
so sorry to have interrupted a deep discussion of political theory on rights and unwritten rules with operational reality :) randy
On Sep 11, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
amidst all this high flyin' political theory discussion of rights, there is an elephant in the room. as conditions to merger/purchase, there were legal restrictions placed on one or more significant operators regarding [de-]peering (i.e. your statement above is significantly incorrect). my altzheimer's device tells me that those restrictions end 2008.12.31. expect change. The fact there is a temporary exception to the rule for two providers in the US who agreed to the exception for reasons other than peering / transit does not mean the rule is invalid.
so sorry to have interrupted a deep discussion of political theory on rights and unwritten rules with operational reality :)
Cute. :-) But the "operational reality" is that you have no real expectation of connectivity to any other network. -- TTFN, patrick
On Thursday 11 September 2008 18:37:59 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 list-nanog@pwns.ms wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large punishment may be exacted
Depeering is not a large punishment?
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West redux.
You are confused.
No, I'm not, actually. As you say, it's every man (peer) for himself; is this not a digital analog to the dynamic of the Old West? If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled. But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral earlier as the posse went after the bad guys. And, well, yes, the alleged 'bad guys' might have deserved the penalty. But it was sure an interesting dynamic to watch. Go back and read the whole thread; it is very enlightening. But you don't have to get all defensive about it.
On Sep 11, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 18:37:59 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 list-nanog@pwns.ms wrote:
This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large punishment may be exacted
Depeering is not a large punishment?
In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've see in this instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old West redux.
You are confused.
No, I'm not, actually.
We disagree.
As you say, it's every man (peer) for himself; is this not a digital analog to the dynamic of the Old West?
If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
If you had ever read a peering agreement, you would know they contain no guarantees of connectivity. Your rights are actually set forth as to what you may not do (e.g. point default), not what you may do (e.g. connect to me). Well, unless you include "disconnect from me" as a right. As for transit agreements, note that the network in question was kicked off both its transit providers in essentially nothing flat, so they obviously are not guaranteed either. (Not to mention at least two more the transit providers previous to this thread.)
But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral earlier as the posse went after the bad guys. And, well, yes, the alleged 'bad guys' might have deserved the penalty. But it was sure an interesting dynamic to watch. Go back and read the whole thread; it is very enlightening.
Perhaps you should read up more on the "alleged" bad guys. I like to think of myself as a very open minded person, but child pr0n tends to upset essentially everyone. (And no, we are not talking 17 year olds, or even teenagers.)
But you don't have to get all defensive about it.
Not defensive, educational. From the tone and content of your posts, I made the - perhaps erroneous - assumption you were unclear on how and why networks interconnected. But to try and verify my assumption, I asked you a question, which you ignored: Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my network if I do not want you to do so? Although you verified my assumption anyway (see point you tried to make about peering agreements above). That said, I like to understand the root of your confusion, so I am still interested in your answer. -- TTFN, patrick
[On-list comment. Off-list comments longer.] On Thursday 11 September 2008 22:23:35 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
If you had ever read a peering agreement,
I have; see this publicly available peering agreement [0], where in clause 9 we find the wording "Neither party shall assign its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party." In clause 5 we find the wording "If ... there are significant breaches of the conditions of this agreement, both parties reserve the right unilaterally to immediately terminate the agreement ..." See what lies under the points of ellipsis by reading the whole (2.5 page) agreement; it is succinct, clear, and a great model. Drifting off-topic; my participation in this thread terminated, unilaterally. [0] - http://www.vix.at/vix-aconet-pa.html (PDF)
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
[On-list comment. Off-list comments longer.]
On Thursday 11 September 2008 22:23:35 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a written contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled.
If you had ever read a peering agreement,
I have; see this publicly available peering agreement [0], where in clause 9 we find the wording "Neither party shall assign its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party." In clause 5 we find the wording "If ... there are significant breaches of the conditions of this agreement, both parties reserve the right unilaterally to immediately terminate the agreement ..." See what lies under the points of ellipsis by reading the whole (2.5 page) agreement; it is succinct, clear, and a great model.
Drifting off-topic; my participation in this thread terminated, unilaterally.
Actually, peering is on-topic. I'm sure there are many others out there who are just as unaware of how things work on the Internet as you are. That said, I'm not sure how many of them can read a peering agreement come to the conclusion that you then have a "right" to connect to my network. Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then you posted this contract as an example of those "rights". From the contract you claim to be "a great model": <quote> Each party’s entire liability and sole remedies, whether in contract or in tort, in respect of any default shall be as set out in this Clause or Clause 5. Each party’s remedies against the other in respect of any default shall be limited to damages and/or termination of this agreement. </quote> I guess you could argue you have a right - at least until I type "shut" on your BGP sessions. Then your rights end. I need no reasoning to do this. None. And your recourse once I have done this is.... Hrmm, it seems your only recourse is to type "shut" on your side of the session. Yeah, lots of rights there. Now, in practice, it is poor manners, and poor business judgement to shut someone off without notice. It hurts your customers and mine, and puts a very large strain on any other business dealings we have in progress or might have in the future. But manners and business deals are not rights. That should be plainly obvious to you (I hope). Oh, and I notice you ignored my question, again. I won't bother copy/ pasting it here just to have you continue to ignore it, I think the audience gets the point - you don't have an answer. -- TTFN, patrick
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Oh, and I notice you ignored my question, again. I won't bother copy/pasting it here just to have you continue to ignore it, I think the audience gets the point - you don't have an answer.
In fairness, he sent me an answer privately. Sorry, I didn't see that before I sent my on-list reply. -- TTFN, patrick
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then you posted this contract as an example of those "rights". From the contract you claim to be "a great model":
Calm down, Patrick. :) It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry not under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business with somebody they don't like, sometimes. For the industry as a whole to make a group decision to not do business with somebody who may be a competitor seems more legally risky. Engaging in that sort of thing without getting some good legal advice first would certainly make me nervous. Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the emergency, "act now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing be a law enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue? -Steve
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the emergency, "act now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing be a law enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?
It wasn't an emergency except a PR emergency for the transit providers. As to a law enforcement issue, it probably is for 4 years now... which comes to show why we are the ones protecting the network. They will probably become more useful in the future. Gadi.
-Steve
On 9/12/08, Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org> wrote:
It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry not under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business with somebody they don't like, sometimes. For the industry as a whole to make a group decision to not do business with somebody who may be a competitor seems more legally risky. Engaging in that sort of thing without getting some good legal advice first would certainly make me nervous.
the perception of collusion is interesting, I don't necessarily think it's happening here, but ianal (as patrick would say). What is happening here is that instead of a bunch of random 'hey something wierd is going on with that host over yonder' or 'wow that network has a lot of bad stuff on it today' someone succinctly put down in an open and public place the list of things that is going on and references to how bad it may actually be. So, instead of (for one example) GBLX-abuse getting onsey/twosy 'crazy guy' tickets/emails they have a chance to now correlate their internal info against abuse@ and other things and take some action. I don't know that that's the case with GBLX in this case, but I know at previous places of employment having lots of odd ranty emails never really helped. Having succint collections of info about a problem would make it simpler to address with management/bean-counters/lawyers and propose reasonable action(s) against the offendors.
Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US
well, at least 2, only one 'large'... other smaller folks may have been: 1) too busy fighting their own fires to worry about someone paying ontime and (possibly) addressing abuse@ issues in a 'timely' fashion. (from the abuse@ queue it's not necessarily easy to tell that badip1 shifted to newip2 when you sent the complaint to the downstream, especially if you are already overwelmed with other fires) 2) too interested in the bills getting paid 3) unaware for a variety of reasons who their new customer really is/was
now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing be a law enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?
with this particular network I've wondered this same thing for 4+ years. They were most obviously doing very bad things for a long period of time, at no time was there an reasonable LEA action taken that was evident form the outside. It's possible that with the forest of issues LEA is dealing with on the Intertubes they just aren't putting 1+1+2 together often enough and realizing there is a fairly clear pattern of criminal activity eminating from the same general place. For instance, I've corrected many folks on many occasions who've said: "Oh that badness is coming from the Ukraine... see the whois' info here:" organisation: ORG-UL25-RIPE org-name: UkrTeleGroup Ltd. org-type: LIR address: UkrTeleGroup Ltd. Mechnikova 58/5 65029 Odessa Ukraine Really? why does it traceroute to SFO then and die there on a host?? Why is it routed to a leaf AS in the US with a presence only in a single facility (200 Paul)?? I know of only a few folks who've put all of the pieces together in a reasonable package, and I don't think they can hand it all over (especially since it's not much good 2-3 weeks after the package is gathered due to the shifting sands of tubage) to LEA without it falling into the 'agent of LEA' part of evidence gathering :( Plus, LEA has to put priority on this sort of thing, and with so much going on I get the feeling focus is hard to accomplish... (I'd love to be proven wrong of course..) -Chris
On Sep 12, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then you posted this contract as an example of those "rights". From the contract you claim to be "a great model":
It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry not under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business with somebody they don't like, sometimes.
Probably?
For the industry as a whole to make a group decision to not do business with somebody who may be a competitor seems more legally risky. Engaging in that sort of thing without getting some good legal advice first would certainly make me nervous.
"The industry as a whole"? And who in their right minds considers Atrivo or InterCage a competitor? Are you upset at InterCage for lost child pr0n customers?
Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the emergency, "act now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing be a law enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?
You have been around more than long enough to know better than that Steve. And you should be more consistent. Is this a US problem or an Internet problem? -- TTFN, patrick
But here on NANOG it sure looked like the gunfight at the OK Corral earlier as the posse went after the bad guys.
we do not lack in self-righteousness or vigilanteism. and we seem to be wannabe lawyers, economists, and sociologists, though only the $dieties can guess why. as the industry has become more and more commoditized, the 'grey people' occupy most of middle management and sadly often senior management. our arrogance does not earn us creds with these folk, with customers, or with our peers [0]. it is sadly telling that <http://cluepon.net> is our major archive of tools and techniques of the operators' trade (yes, i think it is a trade), and it is not even well-linked from other sites. compare this to other trades or engineering disciplines. randy -- [0] - http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2000-08/msg00087.html
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network.
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering you. Google for CPNI and "red flag". Justin
That does not stop me from asking. Also, I've never seen a viable, legit biz that didn't have at least a couple customers who were willing to let their name be used. -- TTFN, patrick iPhone 3-J (That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.) On Sep 22, 2008, at 18:00, Justin Shore <justin@justinshore.com> wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network.
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering you. Google for CPNI and "red flag".
Justin
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:00:35 CDT, Justin Shore said:
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering you. Google for CPNI and "red flag".
Hmm... I'm not sure how "Yes, XYZ is a customer of mine" qualifies as a "red flag" question for identity theft. I'm also not sure how "XYZ is a customer" qualifies as CPNI, which (according to the first few pages of Google hits) comprises things like calling/billing records. http://www.privacyalerts.org/phone-records.html says: For clarity, a "record" in this section is the same thing as a "call log" or a "text log." A "phone record" typically includes: date, time, sender geographic location, recipient phone number, recipient geographic location, and duration of call. A "text record" includes: date, time, and recipient phone number. Nope. Doesn't seem like "xyz is a customer" qualifies there... http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/articles.php?issue_id=63&article_id=387 says: Space does not permit an extended review of the FTC rules here, but they apply to "creditors" who maintain ongoing accounts with customers for repeated transactions. Cell phone accounts are offered by the rules as one example of a "covered" account which is subject to the rules. If a business maintains such "covered accounts" it must comply with the new rules to prevent identity theft of its account holders. Hmm... "xyz is a customer" doesn't seem to run afoul of that either. Feel free to enlighten me about what I missed here?
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:00:35 CDT, Justin Shore said:
There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him from answering you. Google for CPNI and "red flag".
Hmm... I'm not sure how "Yes, XYZ is a customer of mine" qualifies as a "red flag" question for identity theft. I'm also not sure how "XYZ is a customer" qualifies as CPNI, which (according to the first few pages of Google hits) comprises things like calling/billing records.
Nope. Doesn't seem like "xyz is a customer" qualifies there...
Hmm... "xyz is a customer" doesn't seem to run afoul of that either.
Feel free to enlighten me about what I missed here?
Given the unfortunate vagueness of the FCC on their directive, consultants have interpreted CPNI differently and have given their customers (SP and CS organizations) wildly varying instructions. However every interpretation that I've been privy to extends far beyond call records like many people believe CPNI is limited to. Our CPNI consultants instructed us to not even reveal that Company X is a customer (which is laughable given the size of the communities we serve, but I digress). They did however tell us that we can trust all phone numbers listed on an account both for instant information providing and for callbacks. Cox's interpretation is that only the primary number listed on the account is valid for callbacks and that the PIN is required regardless (something our consultants told us was only required if the caller couldn't be reached on a valid callback number). Everybody has different instructions to work with. To answer the question the list is asking, the SP isn't simply stating that Company X is a customer of SP ABC. They are stating that Company X is a customer and that they believe Company X is a valid, not malicious customer in good standing. While that's not a call record that implies certain things about Company X's relationship with the SP. They essentially stating that they haven't received spam or other abuse complaints regarding the customer. They're implying that they are a customer in good standing. That could even be construed to imply that their account is in good standing. That's more than just saying that Company X is a customer of SP ABC. Our consultants advised us against saying anything of the sort. Think of it like HIPAA for SPs. It's splitting hairs but that's the unfortunate situation that CPNI has put all of us in. Instead of a common sense response we get to deal with the knee-jerk response from the FCC thanks chiefly to the Patty Dunn scandal. Justin
On Thu, September 11, 2008 10:58 am, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
Why should an ISP provide proof of the good behavior of their clients ? Or in your conuntry you're considered guilty until proven otherwise ?
Conversely, and sticking close to the 'clean house' metaphor, if someone has a history of tramping mud into your carpets every previous time they've visited, is it unreasonable to ask them to present clean shoes before letting them into your house again? Regards, Tim.
When I worked at an ISP I can say that my house was very clean. Takedowns were done in hours and we had a very large customer base. I will take on the clean house topic any time... I have done hundreds if not thousands of takedowns while I have worked at hosting companies, it isn't that hard to keep the house clean. However, what you have said in this topic has not been useful or brought anything that might be interesting to light at all. Please come back when you have something useful or productive to say. Thanks, James On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
--- jpleger@gmail.com wrote: I am sure if I looked into it more I could find some exploits related to the sites. -------------------------------------
"Why software piracy might actually be good for companies."
Folks should clean their own house before pointing fingers at others...
scott
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:30:49AM -0700, James Pleger wrote:
However, what you have said in this topic has not been useful or brought anything that might be interesting to light at all. Please come back when you have something useful or productive to say.
And, again, yes he has. Absent any evidence that the hoster in question *has* lots of white customers as your employer does/did, then the question is still on the table, as far as I can see. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
participants (16)
-
Christopher Morrow -
Colin Alston -
Eugeniu Patrascu -
Gadi Evron -
James Pleger -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Justin Shore -
Lamar Owen -
list-nanog＠pwns.ms -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Randy Epstein -
Scott Weeks -
Steve Gibbard -
Tim Franklin -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu