Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1

    Rack Shack Policy wipeout

    Well if Rack Shack have a policy of removing customers servers and formatting the discs to permanantly remove offenders. Then the trick is just send lots of spam complaints to them.

    They apparantly will just automatically zap people. A few of these and Rack Shack will be no more....

    It fits into the self destructive policy category. Like carrying a glock in your underpants - with the safety off


    IMPORTANT NOTICE:
    BEGINNING IMMEDIATELY, anyone hosting websites or services on their server that support spammers or cause any of our IP space to be listed in any of the various Spam Databases will have their server immediately removed from our network. The server will not be reconnected until such time that you agree to remove ANY and ALL traces of the offending material immediately upon reconnection and agree to allow us access to the server to confirm that all material has been COMPLETELY removed. Severe violations may result in immediate and permanent removal of the server from our network without notice to the customer. Any server guilty of a second violation WILL be immediately and permanently removed from our network without notice.
    Cryptonomicon
    --------------------

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Kelowna B.C.
    Posts
    1,687
    Like carrying a glock in your underpants - with the safety off
    Ya no kidding. instant connection and instant disconnection have their obvious draw backs. I'm surprised Rackshack does instant connection, thats like suicide with the CC companies. Just speculation.
    Hosting.Express | Affordable Web and Email Hosting
    Shared | Reseller | 24/7 Support | NSA Free
    SPECIAL OFFER - domain name, email and cPanel web hosting = $3.73 per month | Contact Us: 1-800-861-1888

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,779
    Well that sucks.

    Reason enough if you are running a web hosting company not to use Rack Shack as your provider. If someone got pissed at you they could have your business shut down.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Kalamazoo
    Posts
    33,190
    That'd be enough to keep 'me' away.
    There is no best host. There is only the host that's best for you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009

    Re: Rack Shack Policy wipeout

    Originally posted by Crypto
    ....Like carrying a glock in your underpants - with the safety off
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    480
    The policy is kind of suck. I am sure every host get hit with a few spammers every month. Most of the time, you wont know until someone file a complaint. If rackshack simply pull the server off just like that, it is very damaging to whoever running their business with rackshack.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    3,414
    "The policy is kind of suck"
    dotGig
    <:<: [Fruit eating linux administrator]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,137
    Originally posted by Monte
    Well that sucks.

    Reason enough if you are running a web hosting company not to use Rack Shack as your provider. If someone got pissed at you they could have your business shut down.
    True. Just imagine how many clients service could be interrupted/stopped down to one user, would really damage your business.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Originally posted by Paul-ukhost


    True. Just imagine how many clients service could be interrupted/stopped down to one user, would really damage your business.
    Then better find a more flexible supplier then....

    I've never seen RS a good supplier for hosts anyways. Their market is more for the site that needs the cheap dedicated server. Not a stable enough platform to build a solid hosting business from, IMO.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    2,588
    I made a post back when they sent out the notification that they put this rule in place. I think its way to harsh, especially for those of us that already spend many hours of our day fighting agains spam. This is just one of the many reasons we no longer do business with this company. The main reason we have a server there in the first place was because we had to jump ship to a new provider when VDI was having all there issues. They were the only company that could get us a server asap. Here is a link to the post I made on the RS forums. I think if enough of us get to gether, we could get them to reform?

    http://forum.rackshack.net/showthrea...&threadid=7255

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    N.Ireland
    Posts
    80
    How hard would it be transfering clients from a plesk rackshack server to a cpanel server ? Anyone ever done this before ? Just thinking of keeping my options open.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,137
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob

    Then better find a more flexible supplier then....

    I've never seen RS a good supplier for hosts anyways. Their market is more for the site that needs the cheap dedicated server. Not a stable enough platform to build a solid hosting business from, IMO.
    I would never host a server with RS before or now, you get what you pay for. I agree they may be suitable for single sites and not a place to build your hosting company.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    2,588
    Originally posted by Paul_9cy
    How hard would it be transfering clients from a plesk rackshack server to a cpanel server ? Anyone ever done this before ? Just thinking of keeping my options open.
    cPanel has a feature in WHM to import sites from a plesk based system. Shouldn't be much trouble at all.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    that sucks, they are sure harsh. Like, **** happens, what if one customer sent out some spam, so the whole business goes down now? Wouldent it be easier to just discuss it first? Oh wait, RS doesent use telephones.
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    perl -le '$_=`man perlfaq1`;print/"(j.*)"/'
    Posts
    280
    Rackshack's policy is a bit medieval, but when you're dealing with the amount of customers they have, you won't always make the right decision. And their users don't always make the right decision either. IMHO, their policy could use a once-over, but they certainly aren't tyrants in the industry. Keep up the good work, EV1.NET.
    Richard Ward
    1 NET LANE, LLC.
    http://www.1NL.net
    The low cost data center.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    467
    I guess I still don't understand.

    If you sign up for a service you read the terms of service and you agree to it. If you feel it's too limiting or draconian you move on to a service that isn't like that.

  17. #17
    I have had a few servers with Rackshack and change providers due to there under handed methods and poor support.

    This is a tipical Rackshack tactic were they think they are the No1 host and in control.

    Sorry, I will never have another server with them as long as they are in the hosting business.

    I would say to all Rackshack customers to move to another host before its to late.

    Brian James
    Deahost

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    Originally posted by pgrote
    I guess I still don't understand.

    If you sign up for a service you read the terms of service and you agree to it. If you feel it's too limiting or draconian you move on to a service that isn't like that.
    Actually, you're one of the few who do understand. People don't read the policies, and then cry about it when they get spanked for running afoul of those very same policies.

    The distinction that so many of the whiners seem to be missing in this particular case is really quite clear to anyone who steps back and takes a rational look at the situation - based on what we already know, it's not that "host x" had a spammer, it's that "host x" had a spammer and did nothing about them after being warned.

    Another thing that is clear is that these very same people have zero concept of just how out-of-control the current spam problem is, and how much trouble landing in one (or more) of the more popular spam blacklists can cause for a provider the size of Rackshack. It's hardly worth playing "mr. nice guy" to a spam-friendly host, that's for certain.

    -Bob

  19. #19
    its very damagin and not good for hosting business, rackshack isn't just unplugging personal sites, they are unplugging a business.

  20. #20
    Originally posted by TMX

    Actually, you're one of the few who do understand. People don't read the policies, and then cry about it when they get spanked for running afoul of those very same policies.

    The distinction that so many of the whiners seem to be missing in this particular case is really quite clear to anyone who steps back and takes a rational look at the situation - based on what we already know, it's not that "host x" had a spammer, it's that "host x" had a spammer and did nothing about them after being warned.
    I don't think that's accurate to this "whining" you mention. I believe this is a problem for people that are hosted there now, and RS implemented this new policy. I also believe it's not specific in the action of removing access to the server. There was _no_ mention that it would be pulled if the host didn't take action, but simply that if they get reports, they'll take it off line.

    Also, I think if they state that they'll give you an hour to respond and take action ,that would be fair, because you can't have a server sending out SPAM because the server owner or admin isn't around to remove the offending account. Some notice, even if 10 minutes "Get back to us within ____ or we'll have to take your server off-line, because we can't let it sit there sending out spam and wait for you to deal with it". That is reasonable and fair. Remove it if no one's around to take care of it. If the host is spam friendly, then terminate them if needed, sure. However there was no indication that anyone agreed to these terms when they signed up that are complaining, nor is there any indication that it would have to be a host that didn't take actions against spammers (if that's the case, they need to state that clearly so people that do take action ASAP in those situations won't have to worry). However, it seems to clearly say "We get a report, we take down the server. If it happens again, we might just terminate the server and format the drive and you get no refund or backup". That, is not reasonable.

    So your post stating people are basically morons for whining about terms they agreed to when they signed up (terms that were implemented well after they signed up) about how they will deal harshly with spam friendly hosts (there was no mention of this, is said complaint = removal of service, not a warning or demand for the host to take action first), seems to me to be a bit assuming about the situation and what people are complaining about. I do agree on another comment though, that no web host should be using RS anyway -- and to me, that's the heart of the problem anyway (having nothing to do with this newest issue).

    Nonetheless, RS should be more clear, unless that's exactly what they mean, in which case I don't see these people "whining" and being unreasonable. There's no reason to go to one extreme in this discussion, just because you choose to assume people are complaining about something they should have no problem with and agreed to these terms, which neither seem to be the case. Either of us could be wrong, but the terms seem to indicate that people complaining actually _do_ have a valid reason.
    Robert McGregor
    URL: http://www.2host.com
    Email: robertm@(nospam)2host.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    Originally posted by 2host.com
    There was _no_ mention that it would be pulled if the host didn't take action, but simply that if they get reports, they'll take it off line.
    Then perhaps I misunderstood the following, taken directly from rackshack's AUP http://rackshack.net/aboutus/aup.asp :

    "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."

    Also, please see #7 on the same page, which states:

    "Unsolicited commercial e-mail / Unsolicited bulk e-mail (SPAM) Use of the RackShack service to transmit any unsolicited commercial or unsolicited bulk e-mail is expressly prohibited. Violations of this type will result in the immediate termination of the offending RackShack account."

    Neither of these clauses are part of the "BEGINNING IMMEDIATELY" section that was recently added, thereby rendering your argument that the host couldn't possibly have agreed to such a thing invalid. Those clauses make it abundantly clear that spamming can and will result in termination of service.

    While we're at it, let's go back a bit further. this link (click "about us" and then "terms of service") will take you to Rackshack's TOS circa April 2001. Please read it, and pay particular attention to item #12.

    However, it seems to clearly say "We get a report, we take down the server. If it happens again, we might just terminate the server and format the drive and you get no refund or backup". That, is not reasonable.
    Whether it is reasonable or not is not the point - it was agreed to upon signup. If the host in question felt Rackshack's AUP/TOS was too restrictive, then he could have tried negotiating different terms, or simply gone somewhere else.

    So your post stating people are basically morons for whining about terms they agreed to when they signed up
    I don't think anyone's a *****, as you put it, but I do believe that people need to stand up up and take responsibility for their screw-ups (as unpopular as such a thing has become in this day and age) instead of pointing the finger at those around them.

    There's a lot to be learned from watching this situation unfold; what each of us gets out of it is entirely up to us.

    -Bob
    Last edited by TMX; 09-01-2002 at 04:51 PM.

  22. #22
    Originally posted by TMX
    Then perhaps I misunderstood the following, taken directly from rackshack's AUP http://rackshack.net/aboutus/aup.asp :

    "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."

    Also, please see #7 on the same page, which states:

    "Unsolicited commercial e-mail / Unsolicited bulk e-mail (SPAM) Use of the RackShack service to transmit any unsolicited commercial or unsolicited bulk e-mail is expressly prohibited. Violations of this type will result in the immediate termination of the offending RackShack account."

    Neither of these clauses are part of the "BEGINNING IMMEDIATELY" section that was recently added, thereby rendering your argument that the host couldn't possibly have agreed to such a thing invalid. Those clauses make it abundantly clear that spamming can and will result in termination of service.
    I'm going to edit this to say, I used RS before, I specifically inquired about their terms, being a web host that was a concern. Many people have done as well for that reason when they signed up. This has been mentioned at various times how it's dealt with and it was reasonable and there was nothing to worry about. Now all that is out the window and there is a concern for web hosts (Hoaving no bearing on the fact that no web host should be using them in the first place).

    Okay, let's just calm down first. My response was directly related to your response, which was in response to someone quoting the *new* terms implemented. Those *new terms* are specifically different in their relation with how this is implemented and dealt with *now*. If someone spams, they should be terminated, I have no issues with that. A web host that has a client that spams, should be allowed to deal with it. Can you imagine how paranoid a web host would be if they knew that if any of their clients were to spam (you can't know until it's too late), that even if you acted as fast as possible to deal with it upon being alerted, that your server can be taken off-line and wiped out? There's a pretty big difference in their terms you quoted and this *new term*.

    While we're at it, let's go back a bit further. this link will take you to Rackshack's TOS circa April 2001. Please read it, and pay particular attention to item #12.
    I'm well aware of this and well aware of the new terms being specifically different and reckless. Given my comments in my previous post, just consider them. Your response does not moot my point previously, and that was my point. This *new condition* is *new*.

    Whether it is reasonable or not is not the point - it was agreed to upon signup.
    No, *those specifics terms and conditions* where _not_ at the time people signed up. They also can modify their terms any time and put in any condition. They can say and do anything. Just because they say they can modify their terms at any time, doesn't mean you agreed to any specifics that were not agreed to at that time.

    If the host in question felt Rackshack's AUP/TOS was too restrictive, then he could have tried negotiating different terms, or simply gone somewhere else.
    What don't you understand? They were *not* that specific or restrictive before. A lot of hosts basically say that they can terminate your hosting contract at any time for any reason (you'll see that conveyed and expressed if you read them), but for them to specifically implement a new condition (NEW CONDITION) that states they will start terminating people for unreasonable conditions (the new condition), we're talking about another matter. This is another matter. Indeed if someone doesn't like what they read, they shouldn't sign up. We are talking about people that already were signed up. previously, no matter what was stated, they also stated clearly on their site and it was more than expressed that people would have the ability to deal with it and then action would be taken. It is no longer the fact of the matter with this new change.

    I don't think anyone's a *****, as you put it,
    Hey, you said what you said, and _I_ didn't put it, you did.

    but I do believe that people need to stand up up and take responsibility for their screw-ups (as unpopular as such a thing has become in this day and age) instead of pointing the finger at those around them.
    How in the world do you equate what I said to mean this? How to you relate that statement to what people have a problem with here? Where do you assume there was a "Screw up"? By not liking terms they never agreed to, because you want to claim it "means the same thing and has always been there"? Perhaps that's your view, but that's not the fact. This is about not allowing people to take the responsibility. They don't have a chance to deal with it and do their job as a web host to remove the offending account ASAP, because their server has been shut off or even canceled. It seems apparent that you have a chip on your shoulder about this topic for some reason, but that's not an excuse to make such sweeping statements.

    There's a lot to be learned from watching this situation unfold; what each of us gets out of it is entirely up to us.

    -Bob
    Exactly, so don't make sweeping statements as if your interpretation is a fact, because I don't think it is. You are free to disagree with me, but thus far the events have seemed to indicate that what these people are concerned about is valid. What you choose to interpret their concerns as, or what to relate them or the situation to, is completely irrelevant. Your point and view are noted. If we can so grossly misunderstand what someone's saying in a web forum now, imagine how an AUP that's been changed in such a manner can be the cause of all of this and maybe we are both wrong, but I try and be fair to the issue at hand, rather than just waiting to use up my time to go on about how I feel about people in the world complaining about things that they expect too much or unreasonable things about. I don't see that in this situation, unless RS's new terms were not elaborated on enough. I guess that's my view though.
    Last edited by 2host.com; 09-01-2002 at 05:10 PM.
    Robert McGregor
    URL: http://www.2host.com
    Email: robertm@(nospam)2host.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •