I got my server two weeks ago and was told i could run IRC servers and have as many IP's as I could afford and prove to need.

So I put in a request for 64 IP's on the day I got my server accompanied with Fully Qualified Domain Names and what services would be running on each IP.

I was rejected because they said IRC servers can be run on any port. Now lets think about this, say you buy an IRCD from me, and I say, "we already have someone running from your IP, so just set your port to 3133 or something" how would that work? mIRC, BitchX, epic and nearly all other IRC clients default to ports 6667 - 8000, imagine all the traffic which would be lost from clients who run their server on an obscure port?

Anyways, to cut to the chase, I had been rejected another 6 or so times, no matter how much I tried to justify this usage.

I arranged with another rackshack customer to use a bunch of his IP's untill mine are FINALLY approved. Since then, rackshack have cancelled my server without a refund for using IP's which were not delegated to me. Saying i breached their AUP.

Is it just me or there is nothing in the AUP regarding issues like this? and secondly, their TOS states that if you ARE in breach of the AUP, you will get a warning, second breach a suspension, and sebsequent you are facing cancellation of your server!

Now, it doesn't take a scientist to realise rackshack is run by a bunch of clowns, but what do you think about this....is it fair and appropriate action? Would you do the same thing?

Hmm, mabey you should talk to robert, the owner of rackshack and have him justify this.

I really don't know (not going to look through the TOS, as I have tons of things to do today), however if you requested IPs but the request was denied, I'm nto sure why you'd think it is ok to borrow some others? This doesn't seem entirely right, no matter what your reason is.

I'm not trying to side with them *or* you, just reading what you posted.

If thats the case, dont you think a warning, or a short suspension would have been more appropriate?

$200+ isn't really to be taken lightly, i am quite upset at the whole thing.

Would YOU cancel a user without any warning or possilbility for a refund?

Originally posted by hostshell
If thats the case, dont you think a warning, or a short suspension would have been more appropriate?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Would YOU cancel a user without any warning or possilbility for a refund?

Yes.

And

No (well depending on whether or not they blatantly violated our AUP or TOS).

Well, what I'd (or anyone else) would do doesn't really help you in this particular situation. Maybe you can email them and see if things can be cleared up. I really don't know.

I have too much to do today as well, but I will say that there seems to be a number of facts missing in this story. Perhaps His HeadSurferness will come by and fill in the blanks.

Calling people idiots isn't the best tactical maneuver, especially when they're still holding your money.

the squeaky wheel gets the oil, im sure some rackshack reps (now that the own the board) will comb through this thread and deal with it in whatever manner they usually do. I'd think if you had an agreement with another subscriber to borrow their ip addresses, that rackshack would be fine with that, but hey, people do wacky stuff, i'd tell rackshack that you had a deal with the subscriber, and tell them to ask the other guy if they had some kinda doubts.

Originally posted by hostshell

>If thats the case, dont you think a warning, or a short suspension would have been more appropriate?

They might take it as a sort of cheating. In that case they might prefer to cancel your account immediately without any warning because they maybe do not want to deal with such clients any further. Have you read their TOS? Do their TOS realy say something about this issue?

Section 14 of terms of service quotes "Notification of Violation:


RackShack is under no duty to look at each customers or users activities to determine if a violation of the AUP has occurred, nor do we assume any responsibility through our AUP to monitor or police Internet-related activities.


First violation: Any User, which RackShack determines to have violated any element of this Acceptable Use Policy, shall receive an email, warning them of the violation. The service may be subject at RackShacks discretion to a temporary suspension pending a Users agreement in writing, to refrain from any further violations.


Second Violation: Users that RackShack determines to have committed a second violation of any element of this Acceptable Use Policy shall be subject to immediate suspension or termination of service without further notice.


We reserve the right, to drop the section of IP space involved in Spam or Denial-of-Service complaints if it is clear that the offending activity is causing great harm to parties on the Internet. In particular, if open relays are on your network or a customers network, or if denial of service attacks are originating from your network. In certain rare cases, we may have to do this before attempting to contact you. If we do this, we will contact you as soon as is feasible."

I danno about canceling your account abruptly like that, but you basically gave them the middle finger by doing exactly what they specifically said you cannot.

Perhaps they should be more reasonable since you were willing to pay for and justify the IP's, but really, if they can't live up to your desires then go somewhere else. There are lots of other providers out there these days offering similar or better deals.

Originally posted by hostshell
If thats the case, dont you think a warning, or a short suspension would have been more appropriate?

$200+ isn't really to be taken lightly, i am quite upset at the whole thing.

Would YOU cancel a user without any warning or possilbility for a refund?

Note: He didnt just arrange to borrow IPs, he stole IPs on that subnet, including the broadcast IP and IPs of some of our switches.

Is it me or do people get their kicks from lying?

They should definately give you a warning first, i once re reouted my dedicated server providers secondary dns server to my server accidently. All they did was give me a call saying what i had done and told me to make sure it didnt happen again.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
They should definately give you a warning first, i once re reouted my dedicated server providers secondary dns server to my server accidently. All they did was give me a call saying what i had done and told me to make sure it didnt happen again.

Accident and blatant intent are two different things, though.

Originally posted by alchiba
Calling people idiots isn't the best tactical maneuver, especially when they're still holding your money.

Sure, I do think I may have been a little rude doing so, but when upset, sometimes your better judgement doesn't come into play :P

As for the money, I'm sure they will not pay anything back.

ps Why do you think RS customers post on here? Because its the only place we can get an answer from rackshack staff! LOL

Well what problems did this cause for you?

This is not the place to discuss the specifics of this event, this is between our company and the user, if you'd like more detail feel more than free to PM me.

I don't think there would have been a way for RS to realize what he was doing unless another customer reported their ips were not working (stolen) or something else went wrong.

Originally posted by Patrick-EV1
This is not the place to discuss the specifics of this event, this is between our company and the user, if you'd like more detail feel more than free to PM me.

Patrick, why not? :confused:

Everyone discusses anyone on these forums, talk about not making WHT biased about RS, I suppose this was gonna happen sooner or later.

What I dont understand is how can someone STEAL IPs dont you use NAT?


Just my 2 cents.

Imran

In another thread Patrick replied to, another user made a large post as to why Patrick should not talk of specific support issues in this forum because this isn't RS an RS support forum.

Patrick did not discuss specific details for support but was defending his company.

It seems that RS will get criticized no matter what they do. I am renting a server at RS and yes it is possible to "steal ips."

No-one from rackshack will even discuss it with me, and I AM THEIR CUSTOMER! well, was

At least he offered to disuss it with someone who already posted on here, why wont he reply to my tickets?

They actually blocked me out of the ticket system now, and have closed all outstanding tickets...good customer support.

I guess you learn from your mistakes, that mistake being 'its ok, i dont need managed hosting. Hey, i know my way around a linux box so what can go wrong?' rather than taking heed to everyone elses posts on here.

You did have one good point, you should have listened to people here. RS is by far not the place for people who want 64 ips.

$1 dollar plus $25 setup for each ip after the first 8.

I was/am prepared to pay for it, so as far as rackshack is concerned, that shouldn't really be a problem? its money in their pocket.

Thats a side point and somewhat irrelevant. If that were the case they would just "not" give you ips (and they didn't).

If you used some one elses ips with permission then no one else would be complaining and rs would never know unless they implemented some new systems lately.

Thats true.

But the problem is, we can only speculate, I haven't been told a thing. I am also waiting for the bloke who leant me the IP's to let me know wtf is going on.

I'm starting to sound like one of those whiney bastards we all dread to read from on this board.

I will post more info as it comes. The bottom line I kinda wanted to make was that I think the action taken may have been innapropriate, and wanted some general feedback.

Also a bit of a lesson for those who are currently sharing IP's that perhaps it's not the wisest decision in the world.

Hmmm forgive me for saying this, but I really don't see the point of this.
I mean firstly, RackShack have never allowed IRC servers/bots/bouncers/vhosts on their network and IIRC their T&C state that. 1st violation
Same time you 'steal/borrow' someone elses IPs - 2nd violation.

Seperate note - don't you have to be using 80% of IPs to get some more? And then you cannot order 64IPS outright - or at least that's how it has always happened with me :/

Would be interesting to hear the outcome anyway.

James

Originally posted by hostshell
I got my server two weeks ago and was told i could run IRC servers and have as many IP's as I could afford and prove to need.

So I put in a request for 64 IP's on the day I got my server accompanied with Fully Qualified Domain Names and what services would be running on each IP.
RackShack is definitely not a viable solution if you need that many IP addresses.

I was rejected because they said IRC servers can be run on any port. Now lets think about this, say you buy an IRCD from me, and I say, "we already have someone running from your IP, so just set your port to 3133 or something" how would that work? mIRC, BitchX, epic and nearly all other IRC clients default to ports 6667 - 8000, imagine all the traffic which would be lost from clients who run their server on an obscure port?
Their excuse doesn't make sense. You can run any server on any port, but is it really feasible to run an FTP server on port 8253 or an HTTP server on 23946? Of course not...

Anyways, to cut to the chase, I had been rejected another 6 or so times, no matter how much I tried to justify this usage.

I arranged with another rackshack customer to use a bunch of his IP's untill mine are FINALLY approved. Since then, rackshack have cancelled my server without a refund for using IP's which were not delegated to me. Saying i breached their AUP.
They're not the other customer's IP addresses, they're RackShack's IP addresses. You shouldn't use any IP addresses not assigned to you by RackShack.

Is it just me or there is nothing in the AUP regarding issues like this? and secondly, their TOS states that if you ARE in breach of the AUP, you will get a warning, second breach a suspension, and sebsequent you are facing cancellation of your server!

Now, it doesn't take a scientist to realise rackshack is run by a bunch of clowns, but what do you think about this....is it fair and appropriate action? Would you do the same thing?
I would have at least found out what the deal was before cancelling the server, but I don't know the whole situation, so I can't really say.

Originally posted by WildWayz [/i]
Hmmm forgive me for saying this, but I really don't see the point of this.
I mean firstly, RackShack have never allowed IRC servers/bots/bouncers/vhosts on their network and IIRC their T&C state that. 1st violation
Wrong, they do allow IRC servers, bots, and bouncers on dedicated servers. Their Terms of Service only states that virtual hosting accounts are forbidden to run IRC servers, bots, and bouncers.

Same time you 'steal/borrow' someone elses IPs - 2nd violation.
That I can see as a violation.

Seperate note - don't you have to be using 80% of IPs to get some more? And then you cannot order 64IPS outright - or at least that's how it has always happened with me :/
He said that he put in a request accompanied with Fully Qualified Domain Names and what services would be running on each IP. Many places will let you order as many IP addresses as you need, provided you can justify them.

Would be interesting to hear the outcome anyway.

James

If i were to ever start a shell provider, Racksack (tos permitting) would definatly be the place to go. Most providers (us included) do not allow IRC because it attracts DoS attacks, but who better to take the hit for you? Rackshack's got so much bandwidth, most DoS attacks, that don't bounce off wont affect anyone else. $1/ip and $25 setup isn't too bad considering a lot of good places (like httpd) that have LESS bandwidth, but filtering, charge about $1/ip/month and like $5 setup per ip, and about $250/mo for the firewalls. I can sort of see the logic in this, but it's still borderline.

I think that there cannot be any excuse for any sort of cheating from customer's party, including "stealing/borrowing" IPs. No matter how many warnings RS promises in their TOS before cancelling customer's account for such cheating. If customer's server has been cancelled for deliberate violation of TOS, this is only the customer's blame.

But I however think that RS has not any right to use cases as this as a justification of their very poor treatment of customers. I have read here on WHT absolutely terrible and unacceptable things about their attitude to customers.

that's one reason why we stopped using / reselling / affiliating with RackShack

the pricing for ips is ridiculous

Originally posted by qqqwww


But I however think that RS has not any right to use cases as this as a justification of their very poor treatment of customers. I have read here on WHT absolutely terrible and unacceptable things about their attitude to customers.


Unfortunately I think that opinion is based on one-sided biased posts which we can never fully provide an explanation on because of certain boundaries in place that will most likely prevent you from knowing the whole story on most of these posts, except from the client's point of view and a limited defense from the company being accused. If you ever want to talk sometime there are many ways to contact me. *shrug* But people are going to have their opinions and they're more than welcome to it, I grow wary of keeping up with all the short-fused posts made at the drop of a hat whenever someone didnt get what they wanted. There are some legit complaints, as there always will be with most any company, but I feel at times it's just plain ridiculous, if you sell 30-40 servers a day, you're going to get complaints along the way, probably more complaints than most people who dont do 30-40 servers a day, simple math. I'm done reading this particular thread because frankly the subject appalls me and merely highlights the unprofessionalism and lack of maturity of the poster.

Originally posted by cabalstudios
What I dont understand is how can someone STEAL IPs dont you use NAT?

I was wondering this too.

Originally posted by Intelligent Hosting

I was wondering this too.

You can bind IP addresses on the same subnet.

I would simply call my card issuer . I would let them know services were not rendered , and that according to there own contract , you were not warned or suspended . Being involved with a processing/gateway company , our customer support staff have people calling them all day , the banks rules everything regardless if the card is mc/visa/amex or discover , i would give RS the oppertunity to refund before disputing , most merchants which RS is , try to avoid disputes at all costs , i dont know how they work , buts thats how our merchants work . If they refuse , call the bank , dispute , RS has 3 days to reply (most banks havent sent anything out of there office by this time, so automatically the merchant loses , sad but true ), your bank will deny them , and the funds will placed in your account(if not immediatly when you call) so you can purchase a new server , and get your ips . Shoot , point your bank to this website , theres plenty of posts to help you out . Is all i know is that if i requested IP's from my provider , i would get them (then again i know the people that handle my servers, and they TRUST me). I know I dont know the whole story , but i do see some things thank make me wonder , and believe the poster a tad , just my opinion ...

p.s. in your cardholder agreement you may notice some agreements as far as signature requirement , quite simply , if your bank gives you a hard time , offer them 72 hours to provide a signature , if they cant , they have to refund all charges incurred from that merch...not all cards have this clause,mainly newer cards....

Originally posted by AlaskanWolf
that's one reason why we stopped using / reselling / affiliating with RackShack

the pricing for ips is ridiculous

IP's cost money.....Since RS charge so little / month for a server they're quite right to charge for the IP's....I'm sure ARIN membership isnt any cheaper than RIPE but people seem to think its free lunch time as usual!! :mad:

Cheers,

case wrote:

If they refuse , call the bank , dispute , RS has 3 days to reply (most banks havent sent anything out of there office by this time, so automatically the merchant loses , sad but true ), your bank will deny them , and the funds will placed in your account(if not immediatly when you call)

Why do you think that bank will take side of a customer who tried to steal property which is not belonging him? Moreover, I think that bank after looking into the details of that story can mark account of that client as suspicious. I don't know details of this story, but customer has not denied the fact that he stole these IPs.


Patrick-EV1 wrote:

, if you sell 30-40 servers a day, you're going to get complaints along the way, probably more complaints than most people who dont do 30-40 servers a day, simple math

Complaints always will happen. But some things simply can never happen in other companies, which treat their customers in more respectful way. Such things as, for example, this:

pobox300 wrote:

"...I write down dates, times, and who I was speaking to, as well as notes of what was said. Having my wife get on the phone was so that I could have a witness on my end to the type of abusive treatment I was receiving from the head of your customer service department. At least that is what he was the day I spoke with him... You can lock this thread, and delete any posts you'd like, but RS treated the wrong man like an a$$hole, and cost me time and money. You also insulted my wife, and our intelligence, and I have one long memory for this type of treatment..."

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44485&pagenumber=1

Originally posted by jonny b


IP's cost money.....Since RS charge so little / month for a server they're quite right to charge for the IP's....I'm sure ARIN membership isnt any cheaper than RIPE but people seem to think its free lunch time as usual!! :mad:

Cheers,

Amen to that,

Everyone and their brother thinks they should have servers with free ip's and it's the data centers responsibility to give it to them. IP's aren't free for anyone generally speaking. Not only that, but when people want ip's, it's a LOT of management involved, sqeezing everyone into ip space, monitoring it, preventing them from getting revoked (for various reasons, less then 80% usage comes to mind), then requesting more ip's (which is always a pain, for msot of us). This is the most intelligent statement regarding ip allocation i've ever read on WHT i'd have to say.

the bank is always on the cardholders side , and let me tell you , regardless of its right or wrong , the bank isnt going to investigate a 200 dollor charge , not a 500 dollar charge , not even a 1000 dollar charge , banks will simply dispute the charges as a courtesy under 2000 dollars , you also have to look at it like this , how much time and work would it cost the bank to look into this ? , the worst case scenerio for a card holder is having to sign a form and mail it back . Maybe he did steal the ip's , im not sure , he states he had an agreement with another RS customer , he also stated he would buy them . Most people who can afford the product , dont normally steal it . Plus he makes a good point with the warning and the suspension , i dont see how how he stole these ip's , makes me wonder about RS security , but its not my place to judge , i was just stating what he could if he wasnt satisfied and was going to get screwed out of 200 bucks . Just always remember whos the banks customer is , its the cardholder , and the merch will always be seen as the big bad bully , im not saying its right , its just a fact

Originally posted by case
the bank is always on the cardholders side , and let me tell you , regardless of its right or wrong , the bank isnt going to investigate a 200 dollor charge , not a 500 dollar charge , not even a 1000 dollar charge , banks will simply dispute the charges as a courtesy under 2000 dollars , you also have to look at it like this , how much time and work would it cost the bank to look into this ? , the worst case scenerio for a card holder is having to sign a form and mail it back . Maybe he did steal the ip's , im not sure , he states he had an agreement with another RS customer , he also stated he would buy them . Most people who can afford the product , dont normally steal it . Plus he makes a good point with the warning and the suspension , i dont see how how he stole these ip's , makes me wonder about RS security , but its not my place to judge , i was just stating what he could if he wasnt satisfied and was going to get screwed out of 200 bucks . Just always remember whos the banks customer is , its the cardholder , and the merch will always be seen as the big bad bully , im not saying its right , its just a fact

I AGREE WITH YOU 100000000%
That is why my CC is my security blanket(TOS) with ANY company I do business with. I've gotten my money back so many times, for service I was not given (part of purchase agreement) ... it should be a law!

I'm going to be a RS customer soon, and I will make them aware of my TOS, when I submit my order. It's just interesting how many consumers let themselves get taken advantage of with their money.:bawling:

One thing I will NOT go for is receiveing a server from the jump that's a dud, and they refuse to correct their problem, therfore charging me more money(restore).. this is where my TOS comes into play, and my CCand Bank is ALWAYS on my side.

This is my protection plan against ANY business I use my CC with. NEVER send in M/O's because you basiclly gave your money away!

Thank you

RS Only sells 30-40 Servers a day? That is not much at all! i Dont know how they can keep offering there prices.

RS is always going to get smacked in the face in this forum no matter how much they spent on purchasing it!

The only way to stop this is starting to ban users, but as soon as this happens the mods will be the only ones left on this forum.

Just my 25 cent local call for this fine Sydney morning.
regards,

looks a bit overcast today

and i thought telstra only charge 18c now?

*only* 30-40 a day? thats a TON, thats over 1000/month, can you imagine how much work it is for them to do so? Granted they don't assemble their own servers from what i understand, buy even moving 1000 servers, ever try? it's a LOT of work, not to mention delagating ip addresses, moving infrastructure, running that amount of cat5 (let alone crimping that amount), 30-40 a day is an insane amount, most of us are lucky to push 30-40/month.

when im on site with my boss , more then likely we'll buy predefined cable lengths , sure boxed wire is cheaper , but that doesnt include the rj-45's the crimp tool , or the employee to sit and brainlessly make rollovers,crossovers and straight throughs all day long . Anyways im a cisco student and i hate crimping , and i have convinced my boss that it is much more cost and time effective to buy predefined lengths , he also gets more time to make me do stuff he couldnt get around to . This has absolutly nothing to do with RS , but then again most of these posts about RS wind up about way off subject anyways =]

get rj45 flat ribbon, a lot of cisco console kits use it, i think it's ok to use it for small lengths, if you can find it, and it's a 15 second crimp, i bet it's more worthwhile then either afforementioned methods.

RS Only sells 30-40 Servers a day? That is not much at all! i Dont know how they can keep offering there prices.

It looks like anyone will take any chance they get to diss RackShack.

If selling 30-40 servers a day is low volume for dedicated servers, I'd love to hear what a high volume dedicated server shop sells.

Originally posted by Patrick-EV1
He didnt just arrange to borrow IPs, he stole IPs on that subnet, including the broadcast IP and IPs of some of our switches.

... to avoid such incidents in the future :D

http://ccna.exampointers.com/subnet.htm

Originally posted by ShareFile
... to avoid such incidents in the future

This is something that I was wondering as I read this thread: if the network and subnets are properly masked and the IP's correctly routed, wouldn't it eliminate this "address theft" in the first place? The last major network I worked on had 7,000 IP-based nodes and hundreds of subnets -- we meticulously masked evey sub down to exactly JUST the addresses they needed.

Steve

"If thats the case, dont you think a warning, or a short suspension would have been more appropriate? $200+ isn't really to be taken lightly, i am quite upset at the whole thing"...

Do a chargeback. They have a duty to provide a service you have paid for. If they haven't supplied a service, and you have evidence that they have, then you are entitled to a full refund from your credit card provider.

hence my suggestion they are idiots...

in any case, i have absolute proof i had permission to use the ip's from the user in whom they belonged to.

patrick from ev1 seems to sound like the one who knows all about it, but has neglected to tell me anything at all.

today the server got 'rebuilt' and offered for sale to anyone else who wants it, and i am still in a lurch and getting hit on this forum by being called a liar by ev1 staff.

I stand by my suggestion that rackshack are idiots, and would like to say, that you guys are not winning any points from any customers neither past or present by abusing/accusing/pointing fingers etc from other posts on this forum.

From my experiences and from feedback I have seen from other people and checking out your irc channel, you are a hopelessly managed company.

When will you wake up and realise that perhaps need to re-evaluate your treatment of customers.

If you cant handle so many servers, get more staff to manage the damn thing! You are paying $23 per click on (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44005) overture.com, you bought this forum. If you can afford to piss money, why not spend some residual and buy some staff!

I got my server just 2 weeks ago, and in that span of time, I've added all my domains on Plesk and uploading my sites' contents when all of a sudden 3 days ago, Plesk won't show its login page anymore!

I desperately tried to seek help in the chat room, where someone even suggested that i go get a new copy of plesk at Walmart - that IDIOT! Submitted several trouble tickets and all they did was REBOOT REBOOT AND MORE REBOOTS!

These people at Rackshack doesn't seem to know what they're doing. All they do is lure prospective clients into their $99 setup/monthly thing and when you're in, you are in a TRULY UNMANAGED environment when even defective softwares they have placed on your server - you have to figure it out for yourself! I wouldn't be ranting like this if I were the one who caused the damage!

The latest "diagnosis" was a problem with the RAM. So they put defective RAMs on your server too because its only $99 !

I have cancelled my account and has written to my card company to reverse the initial payments I made to this stinking company - to hell with their NO REFUNDS rule, why do they blatantly put this rule on their TOS page? Maybe because they want to get away with your money - defective servers, softwares and all! Now is this FAIR?!?

Stay away from these bunch of idiots who know nothing about their job and I CAN ATTEST TO THAT!!!

Originally posted by hostshell
[B]hence my suggestion they are idiots...

in any case, i have absolute proof i had permission to use the ip's from the user in whom they belonged to.

[B]

hrm..interesting..did you get your permission to use the IP's from RackShack? If not, then your actions did violate thier TOS/AUP.

With a TOS/AUP, it isn't a matter of wheter or not your agree with it...it is a matter that you agreed to it when you signed up with thier service.

For example, when a cusotmer signs up for hosting with me, if they violate my tos/aup...don't I have the right to cancel thier account? Or did I waste my time posting a TOS/AUP, and further waste my time and my staffs time monitoring my customers to make sure they follow my tos/aup? Am I supposed to let the customer do whatever they want?

That does seem to me to be what everyone is suggesting that RS does....just let the customer do whatever they want...no matter how many rules it breaks.

Oh, btw...I also wonder if you have justification per ARIN rules for all those IP's that you wanted...and if you did...why didn't you just request the IP's? I know that when I request IP's with valid justification..I get them pretty quick....


Anyway..this is just my 2cents..

Originally posted by NightHawk


hrm..interesting..did you get your permission to use the IP's from RackShack? If not, then your actions did violate thier TOS/AUP.

With a TOS/AUP, it isn't a matter of wheter or not your agree with it...it is a matter that you agreed to it when you signed up with thier service.

I dont see it in the TOS/AUP - Do you?

For example, when a cusotmer signs up for hosting with me, if they violate my tos/aup...don't I have the right to cancel thier account? Or did I waste my time posting a TOS/AUP, and further waste my time and my staffs time monitoring my customers to make sure they follow my tos/aup? Am I supposed to let the customer do whatever they want?

heh

That does seem to me to be what everyone is suggesting that RS does....just let the customer do whatever they want...no matter how many rules it breaks.

Oh, btw...I also wonder if you have justification per ARIN rules for all those IP's that you wanted...and if you did...why didn't you just request the IP's? I know that when I request IP's with valid justification..I get them pretty quick....


Anyway..this is just my 2cents..

Did you read my post at all?

Originally posted by hostshell


Did you read my post at all?

Yes, I read every post in this thread including yours.

And I still saw nothing in there that showed that you followed the policies and procedures of RS. I am a customer of thiers, so I do know how you are supposed to get IP's. I know that if you justify IP's per ARIN rules, and send that email to askmesurfer@rackshack.net , you will be able to get them. Sometimes you have to move to another subnet to get them, if there are not enough free ones on your subnet...but you will get them.. I am proof of that.. I have plenty of IP's on my RS servers.

You stated that you were using IP's from another customers server
"in any case, i have absolute proof i had permission to use the ip's from the user in whom they belonged to. "
(yes, you say that the other customer gave you permission, but that doesn't say that RS authorized this.) That is not RS policy and since you signed up with RS, you probably should follow thier policies.

Again, I state...when you sign up with any company to do anything...you have to follow thier rules...if you dont' like there rules..then don't sign up.


Again, this is just my 2cents...

Ok buddy, if you READ my thread, you would see, that I applied for the IP's (yes I had 100% justification and supplied them the fully qualified domain names) appropriately....and yes a emailed askmesurfer..here is some of the emails;

To: --- SNIP ----
Cc: "Robert Pennington 1" <rnp@ev1.net>
Subject: RE: RackShack - IP Addresses

--- SNIP ---- ,

You did not request all those IP addresses just for SSL, you said you needed them for shoutcast, IRC, etc.. which can all be run on different ports rather than separate IP addresses. Jeff ( Our VP Of Operations ) in our IRC channel was not too impressed Saturday morning with your use of your current's hosts additional IP addresses ( Headsurfer.we.want.phreebsd.com ) to dodge the k:line after he asked you to leave, as this shows unprofessional and improper use of IP addresses. <--- this was used on another one of my servers which is not hosted by rackshack, but anyway

">> anonymous ftp/SSL/IP based services (ircd/shoutcast)
>> domains for services which require use of the same port on a single ip
>> which cannot be redirected to another port, ie port 8080 for a
>> shoutcast server. There is no other way to use a single ip for these
>> services as there is not yet any technology to do so. Please find a
>> list of FQDNs which will require single ips."

I've set up many shoutcast servers using many different ports without ever having to use an individual IP.
I know _several_ irc servers that run on ports 6668, 6669 and 7000. So this would divide your need for those IP addresses by at least 1/3rd so I do find your assetion that those services have no technology to allow them to run on the same server without different IPs to be false.

And at this time any requests for your additional IP addresses will require individual justification of how many will use what kind of service and for what reason it needs it's own IP and will require approval by Jeff.

--

Regards,

Patrick Smith
Systems Administrator
Everyone's Internet/Rackshack.net
patms@ev1.net
----------Original Message-----
--- SNIP ----
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 5:09 AM
To: rnp@rackshack.net
Subject: RackShack - IP Addresses

Hi Robert,

I bought my server on the thought that I can have a decent amount of IP's if I do provide justification.

I have since requested 85 IP's with justification attached.

Askmesurfer has since denied these IP's and has said he only allows 32 per customer at a maximum, as also attached.

I currently host 201 sites on my colocation server in Australian, and 165 on a server in singapore. I have since decided to move all my dedicated servers to rackshack. In order for me to be able to acheive this properly, I need to move all SSL certs, and allow all types of hosting to my clients as I do now. I currently have 1 c-class and one block of 150 IP's on my servers in singapore and Australia.

I also hosted with rackspace also in Texas. I had 125 IP addresses with them with 100% justification and had these IP's given to me in less than 24 hours. I do understand the difference between managed hosting and dedicated hosting, but this is to show that arin doesn't take very long to assign additional IP Addresses. (so far this has been going on for 8 days)

I would like to get a minimum of 85 IP's on my first rackshack server. If this can be acheived, and there is no limit to the amount of IP's I can request, as suggested by IRC and ICQ sales people as well as over the phone on many occasions, I would like to order another 2 servers.

Please get back to me, and tell me what can be done,

Kind Regards,


--- snip ---

Last email to askmesurfer:-


Hello there,

I must point out that your staff may need to be informed of this as your staff quoted the following tonight.

From ICQ:

hi! how many ip's can i get for one server in total?
rackshacksales(03:18 AM) :
we give you one to start with. If you need more we can give you 7 more for free if you can justify them. After that they are $1/IP/month
Lost His List(03:19 AM) :
so essentially, if i need 100 ips, i can have 100 ips? (if i paid for them of course)
rackshacksales(03:20 AM) :
yes
Lost His List(03:22 AM) :
whats the chance of you emailing this information to me, so there is no problems when i get my server and want more ips? :)
rackshacksales(03:25 AM) :
I do not have access to the department email. However, if you email sales@rackshack.net asking for the information, my supervisor, Aaron will be glad to send the info to you

From IRC:

[02:51:19] «Mick`» RS-BrianV; whats the maximum amount of ip's that can be requested per server?
[02:51:49] «Nathan» Mick`, it is unlimited in a sense
[02:51:58] «Nathan» but you have to pay for them after the first 8
[02:52:08] «Mick`» Nathan; i appreciate your help, but i need to know from an admin bud
[02:52:09] «uh2» ac3: stop sendmail
-
Nathan is bob@***.dial.airstreamcomm.net * Nathan Temple
Nathan on #rackshack
Nathan using irc.ev1.net Everyones Internet Relay Chat
Nathan prefers to speak in English
Nathan has been idle 14 secs, signed on Sun Apr 07 02:07:55
Nathan End of /WHOIS list.
-
[02:52:14] * Nathan cleans his room up
[02:52:17] «Ac3» I have
[02:52:19] «RS-BrianV» Mick`: Probably limitted to 255, but you would need valid reasons for all of those ips


I would just like to point out that I got this server under the pretense that I would be able to have these 85 IP addresses.

Kind Regards

--- SNIP ----


At 10:34 AM 4/6/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Unfortunately the most we can assign to any given customer is 32 IP
>addresses, please reply with confirmation and we will go ahead and assign them.
>> Trouble Ticket Information
>> Status: Closed 4/4/02 - 3:17:18 AM
>> Resolved: No
>>
>> Category: RackShack - RS - DNS
>>
>> Problem Description: 4/4/02 3:17:18 AM
>> This is a TT regarding additional IP Adresses. I have emailed
>> askmesurfer@rackshack.net twice in 4 days without as much as a
>> confirmation. So this is a TT so it is on record and wont be lost.
>>
>> Request below:
>>
>> I need 80 additional IP addresses.
>>
>> DNS Servers:
--- SNIP ---- (Domains removed for privacy reasons)
>>
>> anonymous ftp/SSL/IP based services (ircd/shoutcast)
>> domains for services which require use of the same port on a single ip
>> which cannot be redirected to another port, ie port 8080 for a
>> shoutcast server. There is no other way to use a single ip for these
>> services as there is not yet any technology to do so. Please find a
>> list of FQDNs which will require single ips.
>>
--- SNIP ---- (Domains removed for privacy reasons)
>>
>>
>> At 05:46 AM 4/6/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>>>I am sorry, But I do not have a record of you getting approved for any
>>>extra IPs.
>>>
>>>Before I can approve you for IPs, I need to know how many you need, and
>>> what you will be using them for.
>>>
>>>Thank You.
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have requested IP's on numerous occasions.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please update me on the status?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Askmesurfer
>>>Everyone's Internet/Rackshack.net
>>>askmesurfer@rackshack.net
>
>
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>Askmesurfer
>Everyone's Internet/Rackshack.net
>askmesurfer@rackshack.net
>

and where does it say that it is against rackshacks policies/tos/aup to allow the sharing of IP's?

To me, that would be something between the two customers....

Originally posted by hostshell
and where does it say that it is against rackshacks policies/tos/aup to allow the sharing of IP's?

To me, that would be something between the two customers....

Better question would be where in thier TOS/AUP does it say that you can?


And they are right...ARIN rules (to my knowledge) do not allow allocation of IP's for shoutcast, irc, etc.

If I am wrong on that...someone please provide me a link to ARIN's policy that allows for that.

Your violation of this AUP may result in the suspension or immediate termination of either your RackShack account or other actions as detailed in Section 3 WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE.

I am willing to bet that this is part of hostshell's AUP just like it is part of mine. As well as this bit:

If a RackShack account is used to violate the Acceptable Use Policy or our TOS, we reserve the right to terminate your service without notice. We prefer to advise customers of inappropriate behavior and any necessary corrective action, however, flagrant violations of the Acceptable Use Policy will result in immediate termination of service. Our failure to enforce this policy, for whatever reason, shall not be construed as a waiver of our right to do so at any time

Hostshell: Did you just miss these parts, or do you not care? According to Patrick, you even mapped the broadcast IP for the subnet, meaning you didn't have permission to use all of the IPs like you claim to have. Even if you did get permission from another user, he doesn't have permission from RackShack to let you use any IPs. They were assigned to him for uses he had to justify and if he was not using them for the uses he gave RackShack then he was in violation as well, why don't you seem to get this? What don't you get? YTou broke the rules, got caught, and RackShack cancelled your account, in accordance with policy posted in at least two sections of their AUP alone. I am even willing ot bet that there was more e-mail and that Patrick is way too polite to post it and make you look like the idiot that you obviously are.

As for those suggesting that he get a chargeback, you need to look into some things. Most CC companies have a contract with the companies that accept their cards. (The exceptions being people who use paypal and like services to accept) They have a review policy built in to these contracts and I have seen it go both ways. Hostshell got what he paid for, his server, he was apparently not charged for the IPs, so therefore a chargeback would be plain crap. Hostshell should have done his research before signing up for a server, and he would have known that RackShack was not the place for him. I guess he learned a more than 200USD lesson.

I should have done all of this in one post :)

IP Address Ownership: If RackShack assigns Customer an Internet Protocol address for Customer's use, the right to use that Internet Protocol address shall belong only to RackShack, and Customer shall have no right to use that Internet Protocol address except as permitted by RackShack in its sole discretion in connection with the Services, during the term of this Agreement. RackShack shall maintain and control ownership of all Internet Protocol numbers and addresses that may be assigned to Customer by RackShack, and RackShack reserves the right to change or remove any and all such Internet Protocol numbers and addresses, in its sole and absolute discretion. Our allocation of IP addresses is limited by ARIN's new policies. These new policies state that use of IP addresses for IP based virtual hosts will not be accepted as justification for new IP addresses. What this means to you is that you MUST use name-based hosting where possible. We will periodically review IP address usage, and if we find that clients are using IP addresses where name-based hosting could be used, we will revoke authorization to use those IP addresses that could be used with name-based hosting

Even if a customer did give you permission to use their IP addresses it was in violation with RackShack's IP Address policy. Your entire argument about having permission to use is a moot point and well covered in the TOS you agreed to when signing up for your server. Get a grip and move on, you screwed up and got called on it. RackShack was well within their TOS/AUP when they cancelled your account.

Originally posted by Choppy
RS Only sells 30-40 Servers a day? That is not much at all! i Dont know how they can keep offering there prices.

RS is always going to get smacked in the face in this forum no matter how much they spent on purchasing it!

The only way to stop this is starting to ban users, but as soon as this happens the mods will be the only ones left on this forum.

Just my 25 cent local call for this fine Sydney morning.
regards,
Only?:eek: That's at least $3000 a month. RackShack only has about 4000 servers and makes *only* 3 million a month in revenue.

Originally posted by NightHawk


Better question would be where in thier TOS/AUP does it say that you can?


And they are right...ARIN rules (to my knowledge) do not allow allocation of IP's for shoutcast, irc, etc.

If I am wrong on that...someone please provide me a link to ARIN's policy that allows for that.

Wow... I didn't realize you can just "assume" that anything you don't cover in your AUP, you simply can't do. From now on in fact my AUP will say "Don't do anything stupid". Since I didn't say people can PUT webpages ON MY server I'll just let everyone know after 3 days of hosting and a $50 setup fee that my AUP didn't say they could put web pages on my server and I'll cancel them.

That is completely absurd. The whole point of an AUP is to cover what a customer can and can't do, not just make assumptions. And I've never read anything about ARIN not allowing that policy. So where does it say you CAN'T?

Originally posted by comphosting


Wow... I didn't realize you can just "assume" that anything you don't cover in your AUP, you simply can't do. From now on in fact my AUP will say "Don't do anything stupid". Since I didn't say people can PUT webpages ON MY server I'll just let everyone know after 3 days of hosting and a $50 setup fee that my AUP didn't say they could put web pages on my server and I'll cancel them.

That is completely absurd. The whole point of an AUP is to cover what a customer can and can't do, not just make assumptions. And I've never read anything about ARIN not allowing that policy. So where does it say you CAN'T?

If you had bothered to read thier policies..you would have noticed..that the other user who gave you permission to use the IP# did not have permission to do so.

IP Address Ownership: If RackShack assigns Customer an Internet Protocol address for Customer's use, the right to use that Internet Protocol address shall belong only to RackShack, and Customer shall have no right to use that Internet Protocol address except as permitted by RackShack in its sole discretion in connection with the Services, during the term of this Agreement. RackShack shall maintain and control ownership of all Internet Protocol numbers and addresses that may be assigned to Customer by RackShack, and RackShack reserves the right to change or remove any and all such Internet Protocol numbers and addresses, in its sole and absolute discretion. Our allocation of IP addresses is limited by ARIN's new policies. These new policies state that use of IP addresses for IP based virtual hosts will not be accepted as justification for new IP addresses. What this means to you is that you MUST use name-based hosting where possible. We will periodically review IP address usage, and if we find that clients are using IP addresses where name-based hosting could be used, we will revoke authorization to use those IP addresses that could be used with name-based hosting

Also, as stated earlier in this matter, you captured the IP of the gateway. So, even if your argument that someone gave you permission to use the other IP's stands, I know you didn't get permission to take the gateway IP? or did I miss something??

As for ARIN's policies (see http://asg.web.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc2050.html) ...I do believe there is nothing in thier policies that allow for an IP to be justified for a shoutcast or irc server. (maybe I am using an old copy) I could be wrong, and would be glad to have someone point out where in ARIN's policies it shows that. (after all, I would be willing to use that as justification if I can see that ARIN allows it.)

Just my 2 cents....

ARIN rules or no, RackShack doesn't allocate IPs for shoutcast or ircd. This is their policy, plain and simple. As for the AUP/TOS go read the part of the TOS I posted about IP usage, according to that, what hostshell claims to have done is a violation. RackShack claims he did even more than that, either way he was in violation and has an in-defensible position. He was cancelled without waring, and while a bit rude, completely in accordance to their AUP/TOS. He has complained about it, but even by his own admission he was using IPs for something other than they were assigned for. There is no ground to stand on for him at this time. His railing against RackShack is infantile and useless.

Okay, so whether RackShack is wrong or not the simple fact is, when you pay for something you expect a service, and if that service is not rendered, you call your credit card company and ask for a chargeback.

Here's the facts:

Yes he may have violated the AUP/TOS.
Yes he MAY have done it intentionally.
Can RS PROVE that he did it intentionally? No.

I won't defend his character since I don't know him, however, RS can't proove he did it with intent. Therefore, the service that RS was contracted to do was not rendered and his setup/monthly fee's can be refunded, no matter if RS has the "All Payments To RackShack (Everyones Internet) Are Non-Refundable" policy or not (since it's a bunch of crap anyway).

My suggestion: Call your credit card company. Explain to them that RS did not render service as promised. RS will have have to defend their actions, and unless they employ a mind-reader they won't be able to prove that he made "flagrant violations of the Acceptable Use Policy".

Actually he mapped the broadcast IP of the subnet, that is about as intentional as it gets, I will bet they have the ARP log of that little mess up. AUP/TOS are a lot like the law, the action does not have to be intentional. RS can dispute the chargeback and has his posts here saying he was using IPs for purposes other than they were assigned, as well as the the ARP logs to prove it. He doesn't stand a chance.

As for proof of doing it inentionally, they have loads of it. He says he borrowed IPs - against the TOS, he mapped IPs not assinged to him (the broadcast IP) - against the TOS, and plenty more. BTW I have help my tongue on this but if he really mapped the broadcast IP of the subnet then he is a complete idiot who shouldn't have a dedicated server to begin with.

Rackshack are not a bunch of idiots

You obviously don't understand creditcard companies. The simple mention of "services not received" is an automatic letter sent to RS which they have 3 days to reply. And okay so he mapped the broadcast IP, but do you honestly believe that finance/banking personal are actually going to give a crap about ARP logs?

They certainly won't pay to send it to a consultant, especially for a less then $2000.00 charge. As was said before, unless it's under $2000.00, it's as automatic as it gets. A company NEVER wins a battle like this. It's in the creditcard companies interest to side with the consumer, and it always will be. If MasterCard says the business is always right where do you think every MasterCard client will go? Hello Visa!

This may suck. This may be unfair. However, this is life.

Originally posted by comphosting
Okay, so whether RackShack is wrong or not the simple fact is, when you pay for something you expect a service, and if that service is not rendered, you call your credit card company and ask for a chargeback.

Here's the facts:

Yes he may have violated the AUP/TOS.
Yes he MAY have done it intentionally.
Can RS PROVE that he did it intentionally? No.

I won't defend his character since I don't know him, however, RS can't proove he did it with intent. Therefore, the service that RS was contracted to do was not rendered and his setup/monthly fee's can be refunded, no matter if RS has the "All Payments To RackShack (Everyones Internet) Are Non-Refundable" policy or not (since it's a bunch of crap anyway).

My suggestion: Call your credit card company. Explain to them that RS did not render service as promised. RS will have have to defend their actions, and unless they employ a mind-reader they won't be able to prove that he made "flagrant violations of the Acceptable Use Policy".

As to wheter the CC company will agree..that doesn't really matter..and is completly out of the hands of all of us at WHT...lol

But, if I had been on that subnet when he mapped the broadcast IP (which would have caused me downtime) , I would want him strung up. But, as I wasn't...I guess it doesn't really matter much to me..as RS has handled it.

If RS had not responded ...they would have been neglent to thier other customers...and that would have been an issue to make notice of...but as they handled it quickly...I would say..point in thier favor

anyway..that is just my 2 cents...feel free to tell me I am wrong...lol..I have been wrong before...

Originally posted by comphosting
Okay, so whether RackShack is wrong or not the simple fact is, when you pay for something you expect a service, and if that service is not rendered, you call your credit card company and ask for a chargeback.

Here's the facts:

Yes he may have violated the AUP/TOS.
Yes he MAY have done it intentionally.
Can RS PROVE that he did it intentionally? No.

I won't defend his character since I don't know him, however, RS can't proove he did it with intent. Therefore, the service that RS was contracted to do was not rendered and his setup/monthly fee's can be refunded, no matter if RS has the "All Payments To RackShack (Everyones Internet) Are Non-Refundable" policy or not (since it's a bunch of crap anyway).

My suggestion: Call your credit card company. Explain to them that RS did not render service as promised. RS will have have to defend their actions, and unless they employ a mind-reader they won't be able to prove that he made "flagrant violations of the Acceptable Use Policy". .

Maybe there should be a digital crime law about something like this. Mapping out ips and then stealing them is highly unethical...

Originally posted by web_res
.

Maybe there should be a digital crime law about something like this. Mapping out ips and then stealing them is highly unethical...

ahh..now there is an idea...

While I have used the charge back option myself, I do not think someone has the automatic right to do it just because they are disgruntled at a business.

I may be off base due to not knowing the whole story, but basically it sounds like maybe RS had the right to suspend your account. By going to another customer dn doing with their IPs what was not allowed with yours is underhanded in itself, even if the leaser gave you permission.

I do not think you have the right to be refunded IF you were intentionally deceptive or abusive of the TOS. However if you truely belive you are in the right then I would sugest small claims court to settle it legally. All the talk and name callin in the world is not going to decide whether you should be refunded, serviced or not. just my thoughts.

Originally posted by Kitti
While I have used the charge back option myself, I do not think someone has the automatic right to do it just because they are disgruntled at a business.

I may be off base due to not knowing the whole story, but basically it sounds like maybe RS had the right to suspend your account. By going to another customer dn doing with their IPs what was not allowed with yours is underhanded in itself, even if the leaser gave you permission.

I do not think you have the right to be refunded IF you were intentionally deceptive or abusive of the TOS. However if you truely belive you are in the right then I would sugest small claims court to settle it legally. All the talk and name callin in the world is not going to decide whether you should be refunded, serviced or not. just my thoughts.

Nice Post..and I agree....

Originally posted by comphosting
Okay, so whether RackShack is wrong or not the simple fact is, when you pay for something you expect a service, and if that service is not rendered, you call your credit card company and ask for a chargeback.

Here's the facts:

Yes he may have violated the AUP/TOS.
Yes he MAY have done it intentionally.
Can RS PROVE that he did it intentionally? No.

I won't defend his character since I don't know him, however, RS can't proove he did it with intent. Therefore, the service that RS was contracted to do was not rendered and his setup/monthly fee's can be refunded, no matter if RS has the "All Payments To RackShack (Everyones Internet) Are Non-Refundable" policy or not (since it's a bunch of crap anyway).

My suggestion: Call your credit card company. Explain to them that RS did not render service as promised. RS will have have to defend their actions, and unless they employ a mind-reader they won't be able to prove that he made "flagrant violations of the Acceptable Use Policy".

You've got to be kidding me right.... "Service not rendered," eh... I'm not sure where youj get your logic from but he received his server exactly as it is described in the rackshack website. No where did it say that you can "steal" ips or even use 64 ips to invite dos attacks.

Originally posted by hostshell
I was/am prepared to pay for it, so as far as rackshack is concerned, that shouldn't really be a problem? its money in their pocket.

Well a few things to say in their defense.

1) Earlier, Patrick made mention of the fact that you used a broadcast IP among other things, so beyond the IP allocation issue, what you did a real no no, had you caused a major outage or something, you loosing your server would have been the least of your worries.

2) That money isn't as much money in the pocket as you think. IP's are somewhat pricey, but if you ever have had to swip out a /19 and a /18 to about 200-300 customers you can appreciate the amount of effort is required to obtain IP's from ARIN.

3) You get what you pay for. RackShack is cheap, and that is the extent of what you can expect from them, a company that is in the business to make money based on numbers is not going to give you WorldCom/AboveNet/Level3 type customer service at $200 a month, plus all that bandwidth and service.

Well... That is my rant for the night. :cartman:

Okay your not listening. What I'm saying is RS can tell a FINANICAL INSTITUTION about IP mapping if they want, but that's like explaining rocket science to a garbage man. Joe Blow owns a creditcard issued by Nowheresville Bank. RS charges his creditcard for a service. He screws up, whether or not intentionally is not up to anybody to decide, with exception to the card issuing bank.

RS suspends his account. Now, he didn't receive the service explained.

You guys are thinking like hosting companies, not banks. Can RS prove to a banker that he intentionally mapped the broadcast IP? I seriously doubt it. Not to the point that the bank will actually NOT side with THEIR client.

My point is simple. Jow Blow up above is a client of the bank, NOT THE MERCHANT. So tell me, if you had a client with a complaint about another company, what would you do. Tell the client he's wrong? Especially if you don't understand the entire situation.

I'm not saying that the guy is wrong. I'm not saying that RS is wrong. I'm saying in creditcard disputes. 99.999999% of the time the consumer is ALWAYS right.

Just an an FYI, it is up to the rules set forth in the Master Card/Visa association rules.

Every day of the week the merchant will win an AUP/TOS violation issue because there is a "written" or "click to accept" contract involved.

Originally posted by porcupine
the squeaky wheel gets the oil, im sure some rackshack reps (now that the own the board) will comb through this thread and deal with it in whatever manner they usually do. I'd think if you had an agreement with another subscriber to borrow their ip addresses, that rackshack would be fine with that, but hey, people do wacky stuff, i'd tell rackshack that you had a deal with the subscriber, and tell them to ask the other guy if they had some kinda doubts.

I agree that if a customer intentionally violates a TOS/AUP then the Merchant will always win the dispute. But the fact remains that the merchant HAS to prove intent, and if you guys can do that I'd say go for it!

I'm not trying to take sides here, I'm not a RS customer and I don't know the guy, but I was playing Devil's Advocate. In most situations the consumer will win a dispute. Unless, as I said before, RS can prove intent.

ive never seen a merch win a dispute , the poster a couple of posts before me , hit the nail right on the head . They're going to have to prove he stole those ip addresses . You will also be explaining this situation to person not on your side , fresh out of high school , and will have no idea what you're talking about . Headsurfer made a comment about visa/mastercard rules . Hes right , they have a merch agreement and a cardholder agreement . In these agreements , we see the magic words "authorization signature" . The best of all security features for merchants . As i have stated before , RS is high a risk merchant , but being they dont capture an authorization signature , they cant even prove the person really even signed up , it could have been an unauthorized user for all the bank cares . Maybe you'll catch a rep on a good day , and they'll deny the cardholder , but i would love to see some actual facts backing up headsurfers statements , i know i wont ... so ill leave it at that

case

RackShack are a load of idiots

I have to agree, I was ripped off to the tune of $250 with RackShack, they are one of the most pathetic companies I have ever dealt with.

Some administrator seems to think they have the right to delete other people's postings on this board about RackShack, so I'll say it again.

RackShack have ripped me off, I paid $229 for a server, and now they have removed me and resold my server, saying I was DoSing (this most certainly is not true). I e-mailed their abuse department 3 times, there were no responces. It says in their TOS and AUP that they will notify you if there is a breach of their TOS/AUP, they didn't do this either. I am beginning to believe RackShack are in some kind of fraudulent dealings, what they did to me is absolutely nasty and unprofessional.

In relations to some of the comments...

Internet Contracts

A click to accept, with a recording of an IP address of the customer and the disclosure of the Terms and Conditions within the payment page that shows the ordered goods or services denotes the "offer" whic is then bound by the merchant accepting the offer, thus becoming a legal contract. This is the requirements for an online transaction to be completed and bound as a contract.

Merchant Accounts

Banks define the merchant primarily as the one who bears the cost and risk in internet transactions, and any disputed transaction must have the customer supply enough relevant details of the transaction, and then a verification process begins by the bank in question for clarification of the disputed amount. No bank automatically reimburses the customer without making enquiries with the merchant in question which at that time must provide adequate proof of a transaction and relevant details to the bank in order to substantiate their claim. In a situation like this, the bank would seek a justification and contract terms and conditions would be neccesary for any breach of contract stance, based on a breach by another party relevant to the terms and conditions.


Those that feel that they have been dealt with harshly by RackShack should go seek proper legal advice instead of just seeking an approval rating of a stituation on here and know exactly where you stand. Flaming here does nothing but weaken your stance in most cases.

Originally posted by stephenM
Some administrator seems to think they have the right to delete other people's postings on this board about RackShack, so I'll say it again.
Would any of these posts happen to be the post you are referring to that 'was removed from the forum' ???

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=353191

Before you accuse people of doing things, search for your own posts please (and yes, we do have the right to remove any post on the forum, but that isn't the point).

A click to accept, with a recording of an IP address of the customer and the disclosure of the Terms and Conditions within the payment page that shows the ordered goods or services denotes the "offer" whic is then bound by the merchant accepting the offer, thus becoming a legal contract. This is the requirements for an online transaction to be completed and bound as a contract.

what if the ip is dynamic ? , take for instance a dialup account or aol, you'll never get the same ip twice , not to mention no isp is going to release information to a 3rd party (the colo provider or bank)when they have nothing to do with the purchase , all they did was enable the person to be online , so how does one prove that the ip address givin , was the ip address of the person signing up? Also , i can understand a legal binding contract , but what if the person is a minor , or its not there card (parents , friend , whoever) . How would you argue a contract in court if it wasnt signed or verbally agreed upon?