[30767] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN Policy on IP-based Web Hosting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Wed Aug 30 13:43:46 2000
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
To: multics@ruserved.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200008300237.WAA26617@multics.ruserved.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008301332280.11209-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 multics@ruserved.com wrote:
> > Name-based virtual hosting does not work in many, MANY cases. Beyond
> > this, if you have multiple customers on a single IP address and one of
> > them is an idiot and spamvertizes their website, several providers have a
> > policy of nullrouting the /32. Now, not only does it kill a single site
> > but, potentially hundreds!
> >
> > ---
> > John Fraizer
> > EnterZone, Inc
>
> That might be an advantage in fighting spam. Think of the potential
> lawsuits against the hosting company and the spammer for loss of business
> from the spam block. The hosting company should not have accepted a
> spammer or as soon as they are known to be a spammer, they must take
> action to prevent loss of business to the non-spammer customers ;)
You've obviously not been in this situation before. Just how are you to
know what a customer is going to do prior to turning them on? Do you have
access to mindreaders? Do you submit your customers to a polygraph prior
to enabling their port?
I am fairly certain that the number of hosts that will accept a customer
who says "I want your middle grade package and, oh, by the way, I'm going
to be SPAMMING the planet to promote my site!" is very limited.
The potential lawsuits against the hosting company for loss of business
are just more reason to use an individual IP per domain.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
