Here is an email to a webhosting firm who participates here. I first contacted him via a Post he made here several days ago. I was wondering if it is so that it is typical for a colocated dedicated server contract to demand $500 fine for each alleged spam sent out (with no process of law or hearing). Also, if it's normal for me to pay Attorney Fees if there is an assertion I violated terms of the Contract, no matter how minor it was, also with no process of law or court hearing, based 100% on what the firm believes?

Thanks for your email offering to refund my payment since I can not sign your contract as is.

I realize it was not your intention to play hard ball as you expect everyone to sign the same contract regarding things like I have to pay you $500 per spam complaint?

I don't care if most elements are 'standard' or not. The elements are unfair and heavily biased in your favor. What if you wrongly claim I sent 500 spam's and I owe you $250,000? The odd thing is except for using MS List Builder I don’t think I send more than 500 emails total a week, even though I have 285 web-sites and most of them have email addresses. Emails I send are only REPLIES to emails, not solicitations or new emails, certainly not spam.

Actually, none of the sites are setup to even send email or do mailing lists. We only send email via my local ISP using my PC and not the dedicated RaQ3 Server. We never once sent an email from the server itself in 7 yrs of hosting elsewhere. In fact, I don't even know how to do it. LOL. As I told you many times, I am not a Power User, far from it! You sure can make a Mountain of a Mole Hill.

There have been very few complaints about me, in fact I only heard of one (to an ISP) in the 8 yrs I used email, and NONE EVER to my web-hosting service in 7 yrs of hosting a number of websites.

Are you sure its normal to pay $500 per spam? I will ask the web hosting group if this is standard as I doubt if it is.

I had that happen once with an ISP where the complainer seems to have forgot he first contacted me 3 yrs earlier, I put him on my email list, but did not have proof as I cleaned up my Inbox by then. He complained to my ISP (not my web-server firm).

Even if I had evidence he first contacted me, it would not have helped as the ISP (AT&T) shut my email down with no hearing, no defense or warning. If I was with you how do I know if you would assess me $500 as allowed in your tough contract, if my website name was referenced in the email or a link to it?

If that happened with you I could owe you $500 or more, is that not so?

The meaning and intention are not the issue, as how do I know if you enforce the $500 per spam issue or not. Perhaps you may not but what if you sell the firm and the new owner plays hard ball on it? Why do you insist on my accepting that fine per alleged spam and as a result losing my business, if you do not enforce it?

OK, if you don't want any business because of absurdly way overblown and tough language one-sided fears I may send spam that's your very poor business decision.

Off to the news group now to ask all if your contract is unusual or not, especially regarding the $500 per spam fine and also paying Attorney Fees for any minor violation (only at your decision and your whim), with no court hearing involved. It sounds unenforceable to me with no due process of law or a defense allowed.

P.S. You and the others are doing a VERY POOR job of policing this as spam's get worse every day. How in the world do others send spam so easily, even somehow using my Sent From and Subject Line Information?? Why make it tough on me when I am not a spammer but let the real spammers do it as much as they want?

P.S.S. Anyone else here who could offer me a 6-mo or longer contract on an RaQ3, 256MB, 20 GB HD, 65 GB Mo Transfers, and importantly 40 unique fresh I.P. addresses. with no severe unfair penalties requiring a long written contract?

Thank you.

$500 per spam is meant as a deterrent. I've got no problem with it, and neither should you if you're running a tight, legitimate ship.

However, judging by this
Also, I really don't even know what SMTP and Mail Services is. LOL. from your other thread, I'd strongly suggest you find a host who's willing to help you button your RaQ up and prevent abuse by spammers. You're likely operating an open relay now, and you would be held responsible for the spam that originates from it, since the maintenance of the server is your responsibility. If you can afford it, I'd go with a company willing to manage your server for you, so you won't have to worry about such things.

Good luck,

Brandon

I have all the latest Cobalt Security Patches installed at all times. Why would it be my fault the hosting firm itself is an Open Relay according to a spam organization. The hosting firm allows this to happen. It's been going on for over 2 yrs and they simply don't care after asking them about it a zillion times. They also claim my RaQ is NOT an Open Relay.

If in fact the $500 per spam fine is merely a deterrent then why does it clearly say if I send a spam (in their opinion - with no hearing or court ruling) they can charge my credit card for $500 per spam?

They can also charge me for Attorney Fees, based solely on their discretion and with no hearing or trial required for any minor breach of the contract. What if they actually did that. Why would I want to pay tens of thousands of dollars in out of state lawyer fees based 100% on the whim of the Web Server firm? I am not that stupid!

What if they actually start doing so? I would have no rights at all and since if I signed the contract could not even protest it at my credit card bank, that's why I never signed the contract.

Plus, I do NOT need a managed server as you say. Though I am not a Power User and build simple websites I still have 285 of them online and never ever had a problem or required much in the way of tech help. I do everything myself, rarely communicating with the web server firm.

Plus, contrary to what I read here about server crashes all the time, never had the RaQ3 ever crash in over 2 yrs of being online! How do you account for that yet claim I need a managed server? It would seem many others here who complain about crashes are the ones who need to be managed, not me.

It's ridiculous for you to say that based on my better than normal record at running the RaQ. The only problems I ever had were spam related due to the web server firm and Cobalt apparently not really caring to do anything much about stopping spams. :(

Hmm, I understand your position, but if it was in the contract you signed then it was in there and if the contract is bounding then it is bounding, and legal. There is basicly nutthing that can be done accept pay the bill, which I mysel think is outrageous, but thats life.

hostNOX, I couldn't help but notice that you, this very day, put up your own TOS for critique:

http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54814

12. SPAM and Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE): HostNOX takes a zero tolerance approach to the sending of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) or SPAM over our network. Very simply this means that customers of HostNOX may not use or permit others to use our network to transact in UCE. Customers of HostNOX may not host, or permit hosting of, sites or information that is advertised by UCE from other networks. Violations of this policy carry severe penalties, including termination of service.

a. Violation of HostNOX's SPAM policy will result in severe penalties. Upon notification of an alleged violation of our SPAM policy, HostNOX will initiate an immediate investigation (within 48 hours of notification). During the investigation, HostNOX may restrict customer access to the network to prevent further violations. If a customer is found to be in violation of our SPAM policy, HostNOX may, at its sole discretion, restrict, suspend or terminate customer's account. Further, HostNOX reserves the right to pursue civil remedies for any costs associated with the investigation of a substantiated policy violation. HostNOX will notify law enforcement officials if the violation is believed to be a criminal offense.

b. First violations of this policy will result in an "Administrative Fee" of $250 and your account will be reviewed for possible immediate termination. A second violation will result in an "Administrative Fee" of $500 and immediate termination of your account. Users who violate this policy agree that in addition to these "Administrative" penalties, they will pay "Research Fees" not to exceed $175 per hour that HostNOX personnel must spend to investigate the matter. PLEASE, DO NOT SPAM from your account.

c. As our Customers are ultimately responsible for the actions of their clients over the HostNOX network, it is advisable that Customers develop a similar, or stricter, policy for their clients.


Outrageous?

whats wrong realnames ?
If you can't live with the terms of a company then don't do business with them.

I think you signed a contract without reading the smallprint :rolleyes:

Don't pay the bill till they prove you actually are responsible. That policy sounds absolutely ridiculous and can be equally abused by the hosting company. Regardless, if it's in the contract you sound like you were obviously unaware of technical aspects of how SPAM can originate. I'm not going to jump to conclusions since I have not reviewed the actual contract nor know any specific details relating to the actual incident. Unless your host will provide some accurate and detailed proof, which should be also confirmed with the recipient of the SPAM, and then I would take legal action to get those charges reversed.

It's sad to see hosting companies following the steps of Car Dealerships with all their Administrative and Research Fees, but that's the world we live in. If this company refused to offer some assistance in correcting the matter without a charge then I would suggest switching companies right away.

Originally posted by hostNOX
Hmm, I understand your position, but if it was in the contract you signed then it was in there and if the contract is bounding then it is bounding, and legal. There is basicly nutthing that can be done accept pay the bill, which I mysel think is outrageous, but thats life.

You did not read the post very well. I said I did NOT sign the contract due to the $500 fine language, etc.

I paid prior to the contract and they are refunding all the money prepaid.

Originally posted by Lurleene hostNOX, I couldn't help but notice that you, this very day, put up your own TOS for critique:http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54814Outrageous?

Anyone agreeing to this needs their head examined. Even though they may not enforce it perhaps one day they will. Or perhaps a new hard ball owner buys the firm and starts enforcing it.

I can see it easily costing $925 or more (with only 2 spam complaints), with no recourse by the client. Plus $175 an hour in addition to the $750., 1 hr or more for their 'investigative' time.

Plus, what if its not a valid spam complaint? Perhaps someone simply forgot they went on your mailing list. Too bad, pay the $925 or more anyway with a charge to your credit card, and have your server shut down.

These hosting firms must think we are idiots to agree to that. Odd thing is all this strong langauge does nothing to stop spam. It's far worse now than ever, especially all the porno spams. I would like to know how the spammers do it so easily?

Originally posted by dutchie whats wrong realnames? If you can't live with the terms of a company then don't do business with them. I think you signed a contract without reading the smallprint :rolleyes:

What's wong dutchie, you are the one who is the poor reader, not me.

If you would have taken the time to read it you could easily see I NEVER signed the contract due to the tough terms imposed.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I have all the latest Cobalt Security Patches installed at all times.
While a good start, this doesn't mean much. It's very easy to exploit a Cobalt that is simply patched with all of the 'official' updates. Why would it be my fault the hosting firm itself is an Open Relay according to a spam organization. I'm not sure if you understand a *server* is an open relay. Meaning it sends mail for anyone who asks it to, regardless if they have an account on the server or not. Your server may be an open relay, another customer's server may be an open relay, the host may own a server for their own needs that's an open relay. But regardless, the *host* isn't an open relay. What you probably mean here is the host has been blacklisted because multiple IP's within their IP allocation have been previously identified as being open relays, and the host hasn't shut those customers down.
The hosting firm allows this to happen. It's been going on for over 2 yrs and they simply don't care after asking them about it a zillion times. They also claim my RaQ is NOT an Open Relay. Search the web (or here) for 'open relay test' and you can find out for yourself whether you've got an open relay or not, no need to depend on them.

Anyway, I think you've got your panties in a wad over nothing here. There's no such thing as 2 spams, as you put it. The policies are directed at customers who intentionally blast thousands of emails to people who didn't request them. Period. If a spammer uses your server to do this, it's likely a competent host will help you identify the hole and not hold you responsible (unless reckless action on your part continued resulted in multiple, repeated incidents). Why the $250 and $500 fines? Because once a spammer does his work, it's entirely likely the host IP or it's entire IP allocation could be blacklisted. This would result in NO customers of that host being able to send mail, which would have an extremely detrimental impact on that host's business. He'd lose customers. The economic impact could be huge. Likewise, the deterrent must be sizable as well, so that an offender can be held liable for damages and the host be entitled to restitution in a civil court.

It's ridiculous for you to say that based on my better than normal record at running the RaQ. Jeez, lighten up. Go back and read my post in context. I was just making a suggestion to make your life easier, you're obviously concerned about spam coming through your server but by your own admission don't have the first clue how to prevent it. You don't even know what a mail server is. Did I take a pot shot? Of course not. Did I say, "Man, you're an idiot, pay an expert, you can't run a server for $h*t, you suck..."? Methinks you take all this a bit too seriously.

While I do recommend hosts have strong anti-spam policies enforced upon their customers, the customers shouldn't allow the hosts to dictate unfair terms. If their's no review and/or recourse allowed for in the contract, I wouldn't sign it. Most vendor contracts are inherently biased in favor of the vendor, it's up to you to force changes to your satisfaction or take your business elsewhere.

Peace

Brandon

Originally posted by cbtrussell ........while I do recommend hosts have strong anti-spam policies enforced upon their customers, the customers shouldn't allow the hosts to dictate unfair terms. If their's no review and/or recourse allowed for in the contract, I wouldn't sign it. Most vendor contracts are inherently biased in favor of the vendor, it's up to you to force changes to your satisfaction or take your business elsewhere. Peace. Brandon

I did object many times and refused to sign the firms contract but they refused to change their policy, insisting on a $500 fine per incident, based on their whim and 100% on their decision (right or wrong), with no due process of law, even though I am sure they knew I was not a spammer. Here are the last 2 emails exchanged with (name withheld).

--------------------------------

Subject: Contract Reply / Credit Issued

Hi RealNames, I have re-evalutated the contract, and have decided it is not within our best interest to change it at this time. Therefore, you have been refunded a full credit of your original payment amount, and I wish you the best of luck in finding a facility that can best meet your needs and terms.

--------------------------------

Too bad (you are rejecting me as a client), a poor and stupid business decision. I looked at lots of other webhosting contracts on the webhosting forum and did not see others asking for a $500 fine per incident as you want (and my agreeing up front to pay all attorney fees - again with no due process). You really should look at those other contracts.

The others basically say the acct may be terminated and possible legal action taken, nothing about $500 per spam. What if I sent 500 out thinking they were not spams but they were according to your definition. That means I owe you $250,000, ridiculous. That must be something you made up yourself, perhaps to sound like a tough guy and to impress the anti-spam groups, and maybe also financial partners.

Why do you want to be so much more difficult to deal with than many of your competitors? I will certainly warn everyone on the news group about firms such as yours who have such difficult one-sided tough contracts done with total disregard (and customer disrespect) to fairness and due process of law, which could cost someone lots of money and annoyance even if they are legitimate and not a spammer.

Plus, what about the mental anguish with the client always wondering and worrying if they would be falsely accused of spam and have their server shut down and pay $500 per incident, etc.

(Name withheld), all I can think of saying is that you are a poor businessman and rather stupid for not wanting good clients like myself and others merely so you can play hardball with a contract no one should sign unless they are insane at the time.

It is any wonder you were offering so many free IP addresses when others normally only offer 1 to 16 max, that very well could be the way you thought you could get me to sign your contract!

Hosting companies are responsible to notify if the client is spamming from an IP. Although I agree that the price is kinda high in your case, but then again if you agreed to their policies, then you are bound.

Giving out a first warning is good enough. Giving a second warning is not acceptable.

But Carriers do give us **** when a clients continues to spam and spam and spam and spam. The worse ive seen from a carrier (sorry no names) is cut off a whole class C IP from a company.
Pretty much ban a whole set of IPs from a major router on a OC192. Leaving the company in panic in switching IPS for 250+ static IP sites or even if namebased, god know how many.

That is lots of revenue lost........................probably more than you can pay off in a year........................

What's wong dutchie, you are the one who is the poor reader, not me.

You are right, i just can't understand the fuzz you are making, there are plenty hosting firms to choose from.

I have a simular clausule in my contract for the simple reason that there are people that signup, abuse the server an calculated the risk that they get kicked. Now if someone with those intentions comes along my shop and read the TOS, then they probably decide to pick an easier target.

No hosting company have this clausule to rip off his clients, and risks his good name.

RealNames, is it possible that your attitude (readily visible from the two e-mails you've posted) had something to do with this host's not wanting to do business with you?

For instance, perhaps in the future you might consider doing without the name-calling. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Lurleene RealNames, is it possible that your attitude (readily visible from the two e-mails you've posted) had something to do with this host's not wanting to do business with you? For instance, perhaps in the future you might consider doing without the name-calling. :rolleyes:

No, my attitude went 'bad' AFTER I saw the tough one-sided contract they required, which only an idiot or someone who does not read it or care about the liability would sign.

Why are you oddly on their side after saying the Hostnox Terms of service contract was 'outrageous?'

I actually paid the the first months server rent and setup fee even BEFORE the contract came up as their webpage was not working right.

They then emailed the contract to me AFTER I paid, which I rejected and they refused to modify, not even one word of it.

These insulting, costly legal liability with no due process of law, intimidating, one-sided and disrespectful to a customer tough contract terms would make anyone's attitude turn bad. :(

Anyone here know of an alternative RaQ3 web server firm with a good deal?

Originally posted by dutchie You are right, i just can't understand the fuzz you are making, there are plenty hosting firms to choose from. I have a simular clausule in my contract for the simple reason that there are people that signup, abuse the server an calculated the risk that they get kicked. Now if someone with those intentions comes along my shop and read the TOS, then they probably decide to pick an easier target.
No hosting company have this clausule to rip off his clients, and risks his good name.

Then why do you guys require this one sided legal document be signed if not enforced?

If in fact the $500 per spam fine is merely a deterrent then why does it clearly say if I send a spam (in their opinion - with no hearing or court ruling) they can charge my credit card for $500 per spam?

They can also charge me for Attorney Fees, based solely on their discretion and with no hearing or trial required for any minor breach of the contract. What if they actually did that. Why would I want to pay tens of thousands of dollars in out of state lawyer fees based 100% on the whim of the Web Server firm? I am not that stupid!

What if they actually start doing so? I would have no rights at all and since if I signed the contract could not even protest it at my credit card bank, that's why I never signed the contract.

It seems fraudulent for you web server firms to force this legal TOS contract on everyone and then brush it off by saying its ony a threat and not enforced. It's all bull crap.

Why not simply close the acct if they spam rather than all this intimidation and threats?

no hearing or court ruling / They can also charge me for Attorney Fees, based solely on their discretion and with no hearing or trial required for any minor breach of the contract

These things are not in my TOS, for the simple reason they would almost certain be overruled in court. But i guess it does not work that way in the US.

A company who enforces such rules would be very soon out of business (although they might not need the business after you send mail to 50.000 "friends" in your maillinglist :-)).

As far as i can judge it, its an insurance against malicious "clients".
You fear they will enforce the rule, then find another company, there are plenty to choose from.

*yawn*

If in fact the $500 per spam fine is merely a deterrent then why does it clearly say if I send a spam (in their opinion - with no hearing or court ruling) they can charge my credit card for $500 per spam?

What an overreaction. I can't speak for the host you dealt with, but any reasonable host isn't going to arbitrarily charge you for one or two 'spams'. Again, there's no such thing.

Read my previous two posts above s-l-o-w-l-y and take off your defensive goggles for a minute. Why can't you see that this is a deterrent against malicious clients who open an account just to send a blast of thousands of emails, then EXPECT their account to be canceled - but the damage to the host is already done.

If you're not sending thousands of emails to a list that you bought off of some CD, you've got NOTHING to worry about. The scenario I describe above is VERY common and hosts have to take a position against it or risk their livelihood.

RealNames, I think you're being a bit unreasonable and making a mountain out of a molehill. Just hear this: there is no such thing as one or two 'spams'. Get over it already and good luck finding a new host.

Brandon

Originally posted by dutchie These things are not in my TOS, for the simple reason they would almost certain be overruled in court. But i guess it does not work that way in the US. A company who enforces such rules would be very soon out of business (although they might not need the business after you send mail to 50.000 "friends" in your maillinglist :-)). As far as i can judge it, its an insurance against malicious "clients". You fear they will enforce the rule, then find another company, there are plenty to choose from.

I really do not believe they will enforce it (though they may do so), but why would I sign off on it and simply trust them not to charge my credit card $500 per spam allegation by them?

In addition, this firms online TOS say's they charge $100 per Spam but they may have customized one for me as the one he sent me via email now says $500., though the original ($100 one) is still on their website. Isn't that odd?

Since their contract seems so unfriendly, disrespectful to the client and litigation orientated (and they may sue me as they may have a Harvard Lawyer) I don't want to mention their name here but you may be able to tell the firms name once he starts posting here again and I reply asking about their tough guy TOS.

Also, the ongoing worry thinking if the firm is sold to some hard ball buyer who is short on cash and decides to charge each time an email is sent which he decides is spam? The TOS even says I have to pay his attorney fees for any and all reasons.

As you mentioned above, what if I send to everyone in my Address Book going back 6 yrs, all 18,000 of them, that will cost me $9,000,000 LOL, at $500 each, as there is a question or grey area as to if they are opt-in or not?

If it's only a deterrant then why not make it reasonable, such as saying the penalty applies if more than 1000 are sent? Less than 1000 would mean only the acct gets closed. Why do you need zero tollerance when spammers usually send out zillions, not 1 or 2, or even hundreds but zillions.

P.S. Still looking for an RaQ3 colocated firm. Since this issue came up it seems I now get zero offers from you guys. Before I was getting many offers. Why do you think that happened? :confused: Do you think that "Birds of a feather flock together"

P.S. Still looking for an RaQ3 colocated firm. Since this issue came up it seems I now get zero offers from you guys. Before I was getting many offers. Why do you think that happened? Do you think that "Birds of a feather flock together"

Sure, when it comes to clueless customers. Who'd want to deal with someone who can't seem to grasp a simple concept with any amount of reason, demonstrates an obvious fondness for calling his potential new host stupid (repeatedly), and continues to beat a dead horse with vigor? Your repeated posts continue to prove you don't have any idea what spam really is. On the other hand, I'm beginning to think maybe you understand perfectly well what we all are trying to tell you and in fact have a legitimate reason for trying to avoid any anti-spam policies.

Anyway, I give.....I think you're right: the whole hosting world is out to screw you, no one in the entire legal system could apply any common sense to the silly scenarios you invent....

*yawn*

please fwd all replies to /dev/null

Brandon

Originally posted by RealNames
Too bad (you are rejecting me as a client)...
You are refusing to sign the contract, they aren't rejecting you as a client.

... a poor and stupid business decision ... That must be something you made up yourself, perhaps to sound like a tough guy and to impress the anti-spam groups, and maybe also financial partners ... I will certainly warn everyone on the news group about firms such as yours ... all I can think of saying is that you are a poor businessman and rather stupid for not wanting good clients like myself ... It is any wonder you were offering so many free IP addresses when others normally only offer 1 to 16 max, that very well could be the way you thought you could get me to sign your contract! [/B]
Birds of a feather can read your statements and only a host hurting for business so bad that they'd take just anyone would lease you a server. This is just from one post! If you don't know why you're not getting offers, you need to re-read your own words :rolleyes:

There are many hosting companies out there, one that would be right for you (they might not come here or have read your comments). Pick that one. Ok, you don't like the contract, we all know now, end of story, end of thread. Don't drag this topic into other threads either (removed one tangent already).