A few important things to note regarding our Spam Abuse policy. We do not suspend accounts based on one complaint. We make educated, intelligent decisions based on the number and type of complaints over a certain period of time.
We always communicate with our resellers whenever important issues come up pertaining to the potential service interruption of one of their clients no matter the product / service. Although our policy is worded somewhat strongly, that wording is in place so that we may suspend the account when we deem necessary. We are not the type of company to shoot first and ask questions later, but we are the type of company to evacuate the building if the roof is on fire. If you need any more metaphors just let me know. ;) Peter Ejtel Sales Manager Tucows Inc. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Seeking feedback on the OpenSRS outsourced email product Hello, --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > If someone's account is suspended at all, wrongfully, that causes > > damage. > > I agree with George. F.ex. currently (I have not identified the > worm/virus > yet) I get quite > a lot of 'undeliverable' or 'rejected because of spam/virus' emails > 'back' to > my usual > email account. I checked all the mails, and I did not sent none of > them. > But somebody (or a virus/worm) is using my email and is sending out > these > mails. > So now I even get return mails from some spam checking programs, that > my > (meanwhile former) usual email is blocked because of spam. > > So there is a high risk, that some account wil be disabled because of > spam, > even if > the person is not sending out this spam. Of course it is quite > enoying to > check a complaint, > but otherwise one risks to loose important customers. That's my point, where I disagree with Robert. A lot of the complaints these days are AUTO-GENERATED (e.g. spam filters either at the client end, automatically complaining based on the "From" field), or from corporate email server filtering (I must have received dozens of bounces/complaints about the virus stuff -- "You're sending out virus, oh, you're a bad person."). I couldn't, as a business, go or recommend a service that would simply shut me down, based on that phony complaint. Similar to a credit card rating system (where newbie customes start of with a low credit rating and limit, like $500, whereas customers with a long track record can have credit limits of $20,000+), perhaps an "abuse rating" is needed, to get rid of this "shoot first" dilemma. A brand new customer signing up from Malaysia or Russia with a hotmail account would not be given the same leeway that a 3 year old customer, whose address/telephone number are known to be real (i.e. spoken on the phone with them), and who has spent thousands of dollars in services over those years, etc. i.e. instead of a pure "black" or "white" list, one could be given a "score", and treated accordingly. Personally, I'm totally against those anti-spam advocates who don't care about the "collateral damage" to innocent bystanders. They hurt their cause. Just like spammers push costs unwillingly onto the recipients of spam, some of the extremists in the spam copping community push great costs unwillingly onto the innocents falsely accused of spamming. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/
