[90531] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCP for Abuse Desk
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue May 30 22:58:11 2006
To: Mark Borchers <mborchers@igillc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:55 CDT."
<001301c68454$cfa20920$4336a8c0@Traveler>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:40 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1149044199_2896P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:55 CDT, you said:
> > 3d) Make sure your ToS allows nuking a spamming/abusive host.
> > 3e) Then *use* that clause in the ToS when needed.
>
> Each of the ISP's I worked for had such a clause. I felt it
> was a double edged sword. The only choices were to use it or
> not to use it, and on non-clear cut cases the business side of
> a company may be reluctant to heave a paying customer out the
> door. I would advocate service contracts that allow a graduated
> response including, but not limited to, getting rid of the
> customer. That way, there are penalties available even in cases
> of "unintentional" network abuse.
As I said, "when needed". As you correctly noted, sometimes it's
more helpful to the bottom line if it remains an unmentioned stick
while you find a carrot to wave at the customer. If a well-phrased
phone call or two and a helpfully informative e-mail can get the problem
resolved, you obviously didn't *need* to nuke. :)
--==_Exmh_1149044199_2896P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFEfQXncC3lWbTT17ARAnhGAJ9+PP3Fa+sVOD6p3ury0SZjHWcHbQCg5rpJ
WPtJcqonWv+nVfSX7qI9Qak=
=NY7v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1149044199_2896P--
