GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK |  Good work people
This is awesome news! I was one of these threatening to leave to uhhhh.... cox (shudders).
So now I can keep hosting my HL2 server and all is well.
Power to the people.;) |
|
mariolanning
join:2002-04-19
Tucson, AZ | Hmm They never cought me with my 2 web servers and E-Mail server.. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to GigahertZ420
Terrible news. I wish they held up that 5 dollar fine. |
|
GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK
| Yeah it sure would be terrible if a security expert such as yourself *somehow* got a 0 day exploit and was forced to pay... GULP... 14,000 spams * $5 = $70,000 !
I hope you were being sarcastic but if not, enjoy your fine - you security expert you! |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| I am no security expert. I think the main reason I am fine is because I don't click on links in instant messenger, install anything that popups in a web browser, use webmail clients that scan for viruses, and have an updated virus scanner running. Nothing out of the ordinary, or anything that anyone would consider expert. |
|
NetDroid2
join:2004-08-16
Excelsior, MN
| reply to GigahertZ420
hmm... if they would of kept the $5 per spam in there we would have FTTP by the end of the year!
(That is if there was a spam out break this year.)
Or at the very least a nice network upgrade.
Its nice they changed the wording if I ever decided to go to DSL. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to insomniac84
With the recent WMF Zero-Day exploit all you would have needed to have done is viewed a webpage that included an exploited WMF file on it. That could have gotten you infected which, in turn, could have turned your system into a spam-spewing zombie. I think warning letters followed by service cutoffs are a better solution. (So long as there is sufficient customer service available to contest wrongly applied warnings/cutoffs and to restore service to people who clean their systems.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | reply to insomniac84
Well I guess you're impenetrable, untouchable, certainly because you think you're not an expert. You can never be too vigilant. |
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA
| reply to insomniac84
So what you are trying to say is:
You don't:
Click on links in IM.
Install anything in pop-ups.
Use web-mail clients with virus scan.
Have an updated virus scanner.
Next time you might want to keep an eye on your grammar.
:P |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| Why remove it? Just modify it...
Okay... I don't understanding why Qwest didn't just modify the provision instead of removing it. Simply add something along the lines of "...for knowingly sending spam messages..." I am sure there is some better 'legal' phrase, but that pretty much takes care of it. The burden would need to be placed on Qwest to prove the user "knowingly" sent spam... but that is pretty easily taken care of.
Exmaple, Qwest detects spam coming from a system. They inform the user of that system to cease and desist. Once the user has been notified, they have X number of days to stop it. So, either the person is purposely sending spam and they've been caught and have a chance to stop, or the person's system is infected and the user has now been informed of the infection and should do something about it. Even in a situation where a security flaw existed that the user truly could not have done anything to prevent it... doesn't mean the user should still be allowed to keep their system connected and spewing spam/viruses/etc. If the infected machine is not fixed, the account/system is prevented access to the network. If an account refuses to stop sending spam, the account is denied access to the internet.
Ignorance is never an excuse for continued problems. Simply because you personally don't know how to disinfect a computer doesn't give you the right to continue using a system that is infected and causing problems! However, a person does have a responsibility once they are made aware of the problem to correct that problem. If they can't fix it themselves... they should pay someone else to fix it. This makes me think of emissions testing for cars. If your car fails.... you don't get to claim... "I don't know how to fix a car..." Instead... you drive your car to a repair shop, and have it fixed. |
|
AT1
join:2003-03-05
Sedalia, MO | Simple solution is to cut the users access 'till the virus is removed. |
|
BJGillette
@ccreminder.com
| reply to GigahertZ420
Correction: Good work people
Greg @ Techdirt pointed out an error in our story at Email Battles. The $5 spam charge is still in.
I took the AUP copy from the sidebar instead of item 9 in the High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement PDF. Qwest got more credit than deserved.
At Email Battles, we have changed our copy to:Panicky Qwest execs responded, apparently bringing the legal hounds to heel. As a result, Qwest's Acceptable Use Policy no longer mentions a $5.00 per message charge at all. Correction: As of this writing, Qwest has not dropped the blue sky $5.00/message spam liability. But Qwest has changed the server limitations. Sorry for the inconvenience to all.
BJ Gillette, Editor
Email Battles |
|
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| This sucks, IMO
QWEST is a spam sewer. Rather than doing something sensible like changing it to read "$5 for every spam email that is intentionally sent", they defang their AUP.
Not that QWORST bothers to respond to LARTS anyway.
In reality, they have acted as if they just don't give a hoot about the junk that is spewing out of their network. That's why they are on so many blocklists.
No less than 7 major ROKSO listed spammers have been identified as operating from QWEST IP space:
»www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.la···west.net
looks as if some of the NANAE crew thinks that teaching clooless users a hard lesson about letting their box get zombified would be a GOOD THING(TM)
»tinyurl.com/akffn |
|
VikingStorm
join:2002-06-25
Omaha, NE | "Began an Internet wide gripe session"
"began an Internet wide gripe session that lasted several days"
I don't know why but I started laughing when I read that.:D |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to GigahertZ420
Re: Good work people
I too was one that told them to put thier Business Class DSL where the sun didn't shine.
However, there has never been an issue with running servers on their service. Hell, they even have forward and reverse DNS features in their control panels.
They just were being Qwest trying to be more like cable tv, the service they bag on all the time. I think it's funny.. having been in the industry for so long, I have seen the battles play out on the actual battle field. Cable, especially comcast, always swore that they would not play the same games that satellite was. They spoke of all thier good qualities and frowned on the new business models and advertisment slams of DBS - now comcast and cable engage in the same thing. Futher, Telco makes claims they are better than cable services for various reasons but give them time, they start to play the same game. Qwest wanted to stop allowing servers "becasue they were afraid of bandwidth hogs affecting others in the area" - but wait! Isn't DSL a dedicated line I asked? He didn't have an answer.
The day Qwest stops allowing servers on their line is the day I don't need them any more. It's the ONLY reason I have them.
From what I was told by both a Qwest 'department manager' and my attorney, whom I sicked on Qwest - they have had indeed had many complaints. It's my understanding they threw this out to see if anyone would bit back - looks like they did. |
|
ewth8tr
Premium
join:2005-04-03
Salt Lake City, UT
| reply to AT1
Re: Why remove it? Just modify it...
said by AT1  :Simple solution is to cut the users access 'till the virus is removed. This is what is currently done. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Well the dumb question is
"Where does end user responsibility lie?"
If you don't hit them financially they won't care. Even at postal rates say $0.39 a piece @ 14,000 e-mails sent, that still is a roughly $6000 fine. I could even agree at $0.01 a piece, if the quantity is high enough.
I guarantee if my wife got something like that she would think twice before leaving her computer open (which I keep her pretty locked down most times). Bottom line is as long as it does not affect them short of the monthly price they are not going to care.
I hate to be evil, and I am glad for some end users but there really needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to sweintz
Re: This sucks, IMO
Wow! Those are some pretty, well, I will resefve comment.
However, when it comes to spam lists...? I would rethink the spam lists themselves actually. Most of them being run but 18 year old hobbiests. They are poorly managed, if at all, and cause many large businessess issues.
If I had my choice, spamhause and the rest would be outlaw'd. (Unless they clean up thier act) These rogue operations cost alot of network operators more time and money because of the poor operations of these lists.
However, I would like to see ISPs required to offer spam filtering at no cost tot he user. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to NetDroid2
Re: Good work people
said by NetDroid2 :hmm... if they would of kept the $5 per spam in there we would have FTTP by the end of the year! Nah, the CxO's will just get larger bonuses
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | reply to shashinka
said by shashinka :Well I guess you're impenetrable, untouchable, certainly because you think you're not an expert. You can never be too vigilant. Of course not impenetrable, but I would think everyone would agree that just using a small amount of intelligence while on the internet is all it takes to be fairly secure. Unfortunately for you, you probably have clicked every ok message you run across and loaded some nasty stuff on your computer, so it hurts you to hear people say that that only happened because you lacked basic intelligence.
I suggest you get a platform that's not worth hacking, like a mac. |
|
