<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_1210213</id>
	<title>Naming and Shaming "Bad" ISPs</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269092640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Brian Krebs takes a provocative look at ISP reputations, collecting data from 10 different sources that <a href="http://www.krebsonsecurity.com/2010/03/naming-and-shaming-bad-isps/">track 'badness' from a multitude of angles</a>, from phishing to malware to botnet command and control centers. Some of the lists show very interesting and useful results; the ISPs that are most common among the various reputation services are some of the largest ISPs and hosting providers, including ThePlanet and Softlayer. The story has generated quite a bit of discussion in the security community as to whether these various efforts are measuring the wrong things, or if it is indeed valid and useful to keep public attention focused on the bigger providers, since these are generally US-based and have the largest abuse problems in terms of overall numbers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Brian Krebs takes a provocative look at ISP reputations , collecting data from 10 different sources that track 'badness ' from a multitude of angles , from phishing to malware to botnet command and control centers .
Some of the lists show very interesting and useful results ; the ISPs that are most common among the various reputation services are some of the largest ISPs and hosting providers , including ThePlanet and Softlayer .
The story has generated quite a bit of discussion in the security community as to whether these various efforts are measuring the wrong things , or if it is indeed valid and useful to keep public attention focused on the bigger providers , since these are generally US-based and have the largest abuse problems in terms of overall numbers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Brian Krebs takes a provocative look at ISP reputations, collecting data from 10 different sources that track 'badness' from a multitude of angles, from phishing to malware to botnet command and control centers.
Some of the lists show very interesting and useful results; the ISPs that are most common among the various reputation services are some of the largest ISPs and hosting providers, including ThePlanet and Softlayer.
The story has generated quite a bit of discussion in the security community as to whether these various efforts are measuring the wrong things, or if it is indeed valid and useful to keep public attention focused on the bigger providers, since these are generally US-based and have the largest abuse problems in terms of overall numbers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549204</id>
	<title>first po fronm the man.net</title>
	<author>Notegg Nornoggin</author>
	<datestamp>1269097080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would of been a first post, but my ISP slows down the packets to keep us poor colored folk's down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would of been a first post , but my ISP slows down the packets to keep us poor colored folk 's down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would of been a first post, but my ISP slows down the packets to keep us poor colored folk's down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549286</id>
	<title>Re:ThePlanet</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1269097980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you blacklist Google too? They are on the lists too. It's not the problem that they would be actively friendly towards such activity, it's that they're so big companies that they get abused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you blacklist Google too ?
They are on the lists too .
It 's not the problem that they would be actively friendly towards such activity , it 's that they 're so big companies that they get abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you blacklist Google too?
They are on the lists too.
It's not the problem that they would be actively friendly towards such activity, it's that they're so big companies that they get abused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31552750</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1269084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should corporations care? Two words "litigation exposure." A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day. They will see you in court. Good luck with that "don't blame me, blame my ISP" defense.

I think that kind of "not my problem" thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze. Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud  . Good luck with that too.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should corporations care ?
Two words " litigation exposure .
" A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day .
They will see you in court .
Good luck with that " do n't blame me , blame my ISP " defense .
I think that kind of " not my problem " thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze .
Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud .
Good luck with that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should corporations care?
Two words "litigation exposure.
" A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day.
They will see you in court.
Good luck with that "don't blame me, blame my ISP" defense.
I think that kind of "not my problem" thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze.
Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud  .
Good luck with that too.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549988</id>
	<title>Major domains being exploited</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1269106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We've been doing something like this at SiteTruth for two years. We have the list of <a href="http://www.sitetruth.com/reports/phishes.html" title="sitetruth.com">major domains being exploited by active phishing scams</a> [sitetruth.com].  This is simply a list of domains that are both in PhishTank (about 100,000 entries) and Open Directory (about 1.5 million entries).  Today, 84 domains are in both.  There's been a surge; it was 54 two days ago.
</p><p>
Domains are on this list for one of several reasons.
</p><ol>
<li>
<b>They had a break-in, and didn't clean it up.</b> Generally, the sites with this problem for long periods are ones without effective contact information, so there's no easy way to tell them about their problem.</li>
<li>
<b>They have an <a href="http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/601.html" title="mitre.org">open redirector.</a> [mitre.org] </b>  Those are rare now, but were common two years ago.  Yahoo, eBay, and Microsoft Live all used to have open redirectors.  After much nagging, and some press coverage, the big players have plugged that hole.</li>
<li>
<b>They're a hosting service, especially a free hosting service.</b>  Free hosting services need to be very aggressive about checking themselves for exploits.  The smarter players now read the PhishTank and APWG feeds automatically, to detect abuses of their own systems.  Right now, "t35.com" is suffering from a massive attack, with 227 pages in PhishTank.  Their problem is that they're being attacked by a program, but are cleaning up by hand. Every day they kick off hundreds of phishing pages, but they can't keep up.  The previous site with the worst problems was "piczo.com" (some kind of social network/hosting service for teenage girls), but they've been gaining on the problem.</li>
<li>
<b>They're an ISP</b> There are a few ISPs with phishing sites they just never seem to kick off.  Most of the active ones were kicked off long ago. In fact, other than ISPs which are also hosting services, we show only one entry in this category, and it's a DSL line on RoadRunner that redirects to a dead page.</li>
<li>
<b>They're a "short URL" service.</b> These are popular as a way to get phishing URLs past spam filters.  The "short URL" services have become much more aggressive about kicking off phishing URLs over the last year.</li>
</ol><p>
While this is to some extent a "blame the victim" approach, it's more effective than "phishing education" aimed at end users.  Hundreds of webmasters have to be educated, not hundreds of millions of end users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been doing something like this at SiteTruth for two years .
We have the list of major domains being exploited by active phishing scams [ sitetruth.com ] .
This is simply a list of domains that are both in PhishTank ( about 100,000 entries ) and Open Directory ( about 1.5 million entries ) .
Today , 84 domains are in both .
There 's been a surge ; it was 54 two days ago .
Domains are on this list for one of several reasons .
They had a break-in , and did n't clean it up .
Generally , the sites with this problem for long periods are ones without effective contact information , so there 's no easy way to tell them about their problem .
They have an open redirector .
[ mitre.org ] Those are rare now , but were common two years ago .
Yahoo , eBay , and Microsoft Live all used to have open redirectors .
After much nagging , and some press coverage , the big players have plugged that hole .
They 're a hosting service , especially a free hosting service .
Free hosting services need to be very aggressive about checking themselves for exploits .
The smarter players now read the PhishTank and APWG feeds automatically , to detect abuses of their own systems .
Right now , " t35.com " is suffering from a massive attack , with 227 pages in PhishTank .
Their problem is that they 're being attacked by a program , but are cleaning up by hand .
Every day they kick off hundreds of phishing pages , but they ca n't keep up .
The previous site with the worst problems was " piczo.com " ( some kind of social network/hosting service for teenage girls ) , but they 've been gaining on the problem .
They 're an ISP There are a few ISPs with phishing sites they just never seem to kick off .
Most of the active ones were kicked off long ago .
In fact , other than ISPs which are also hosting services , we show only one entry in this category , and it 's a DSL line on RoadRunner that redirects to a dead page .
They 're a " short URL " service .
These are popular as a way to get phishing URLs past spam filters .
The " short URL " services have become much more aggressive about kicking off phishing URLs over the last year .
While this is to some extent a " blame the victim " approach , it 's more effective than " phishing education " aimed at end users .
Hundreds of webmasters have to be educated , not hundreds of millions of end users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We've been doing something like this at SiteTruth for two years.
We have the list of major domains being exploited by active phishing scams [sitetruth.com].
This is simply a list of domains that are both in PhishTank (about 100,000 entries) and Open Directory (about 1.5 million entries).
Today, 84 domains are in both.
There's been a surge; it was 54 two days ago.
Domains are on this list for one of several reasons.
They had a break-in, and didn't clean it up.
Generally, the sites with this problem for long periods are ones without effective contact information, so there's no easy way to tell them about their problem.
They have an open redirector.
[mitre.org]   Those are rare now, but were common two years ago.
Yahoo, eBay, and Microsoft Live all used to have open redirectors.
After much nagging, and some press coverage, the big players have plugged that hole.
They're a hosting service, especially a free hosting service.
Free hosting services need to be very aggressive about checking themselves for exploits.
The smarter players now read the PhishTank and APWG feeds automatically, to detect abuses of their own systems.
Right now, "t35.com" is suffering from a massive attack, with 227 pages in PhishTank.
Their problem is that they're being attacked by a program, but are cleaning up by hand.
Every day they kick off hundreds of phishing pages, but they can't keep up.
The previous site with the worst problems was "piczo.com" (some kind of social network/hosting service for teenage girls), but they've been gaining on the problem.
They're an ISP There are a few ISPs with phishing sites they just never seem to kick off.
Most of the active ones were kicked off long ago.
In fact, other than ISPs which are also hosting services, we show only one entry in this category, and it's a DSL line on RoadRunner that redirects to a dead page.
They're a "short URL" service.
These are popular as a way to get phishing URLs past spam filters.
The "short URL" services have become much more aggressive about kicking off phishing URLs over the last year.
While this is to some extent a "blame the victim" approach, it's more effective than "phishing education" aimed at end users.
Hundreds of webmasters have to be educated, not hundreds of millions of end users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31552720</id>
	<title>Re:I think it'a about the same all over</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1269084360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about taking legal actions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about taking legal actions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about taking legal actions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549932</id>
	<title>Look....</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1269105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, no matter how much we want ISPs to stop malware, botnets, etc. when they start doing that, they are going to start becoming more evil (as in giving out IP addresses and subscriber names, etc). Content-agnostic ISPs are -always- going to be better for the internet. Unless, you want throttling and your ISP to check for "pirated" content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , no matter how much we want ISPs to stop malware , botnets , etc .
when they start doing that , they are going to start becoming more evil ( as in giving out IP addresses and subscriber names , etc ) .
Content-agnostic ISPs are -always- going to be better for the internet .
Unless , you want throttling and your ISP to check for " pirated " content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, no matter how much we want ISPs to stop malware, botnets, etc.
when they start doing that, they are going to start becoming more evil (as in giving out IP addresses and subscriber names, etc).
Content-agnostic ISPs are -always- going to be better for the internet.
Unless, you want throttling and your ISP to check for "pirated" content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549482</id>
	<title>time for a division</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So as by far the biggest abuse problems (botnets, spam,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) are coming out of the USA since many years, maybe it is time for other countries to black whole USA based addresses.  Just stop routing their packets until they become good net citizens.</p><p>I don't know how many reports I have seen pointing to the USA as the biggest spam source.  It's time to do something about it.  Only if there are some consequences will they ever change their behaviour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So as by far the biggest abuse problems ( botnets , spam , ... ) are coming out of the USA since many years , maybe it is time for other countries to black whole USA based addresses .
Just stop routing their packets until they become good net citizens.I do n't know how many reports I have seen pointing to the USA as the biggest spam source .
It 's time to do something about it .
Only if there are some consequences will they ever change their behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So as by far the biggest abuse problems (botnets, spam, ...) are coming out of the USA since many years, maybe it is time for other countries to black whole USA based addresses.
Just stop routing their packets until they become good net citizens.I don't know how many reports I have seen pointing to the USA as the biggest spam source.
It's time to do something about it.
Only if there are some consequences will they ever change their behaviour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549258</id>
	<title>Network neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You take the good. You take the bad. You take them both, and there you have Net Neutrality.</p><p>Net Neutrality. When the world never seems to be living up to your dreams, and suddenly you're finding out Net Neutrality isn't all about you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You take the good .
You take the bad .
You take them both , and there you have Net Neutrality.Net Neutrality .
When the world never seems to be living up to your dreams , and suddenly you 're finding out Net Neutrality is n't all about you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You take the good.
You take the bad.
You take them both, and there you have Net Neutrality.Net Neutrality.
When the world never seems to be living up to your dreams, and suddenly you're finding out Net Neutrality isn't all about you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248</id>
	<title>ThePlanet</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1269097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a shame that ThePlanet is doing so badly. I've used them before for dedicated hosting and was very happy with the service I received. I will say that they are very "hands off" (which is generally good, but bad in this case). I think one has to remember that this is a chart of which ISPs are most responsive and active in stopping abuse originating from their network and not some kind of general review of the service they offer.</p><p>That being said I think all the ISPs listed should be unhappy about appearing on these lists and should actively be trying to fix their reputation or risk getting blacklisted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a shame that ThePlanet is doing so badly .
I 've used them before for dedicated hosting and was very happy with the service I received .
I will say that they are very " hands off " ( which is generally good , but bad in this case ) .
I think one has to remember that this is a chart of which ISPs are most responsive and active in stopping abuse originating from their network and not some kind of general review of the service they offer.That being said I think all the ISPs listed should be unhappy about appearing on these lists and should actively be trying to fix their reputation or risk getting blacklisted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a shame that ThePlanet is doing so badly.
I've used them before for dedicated hosting and was very happy with the service I received.
I will say that they are very "hands off" (which is generally good, but bad in this case).
I think one has to remember that this is a chart of which ISPs are most responsive and active in stopping abuse originating from their network and not some kind of general review of the service they offer.That being said I think all the ISPs listed should be unhappy about appearing on these lists and should actively be trying to fix their reputation or risk getting blacklisted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549602</id>
	<title>I am a bit doubtful</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1269101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason being that when I look at our firewall logs or when we happen to get a system compromised, the US is way underrepresented. The US accounts for a very large portion of the Internet still, and we are located in the US so you might expect to see most attacks from there. However the majority are RIPE or APNIC addresses. You can also see it in things like Conficker infections. If you look at the graph of what got hit how bad (http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/wiki/uploads/ANY/conficker-all-2009-small.png) you see that RIPE and APNIC are again way overrepresented in relation to the whole.</p><p>Now I've not done a scientific study on this, I'll admit, but I do have a reasonable data set and it just doesn't match with what I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason being that when I look at our firewall logs or when we happen to get a system compromised , the US is way underrepresented .
The US accounts for a very large portion of the Internet still , and we are located in the US so you might expect to see most attacks from there .
However the majority are RIPE or APNIC addresses .
You can also see it in things like Conficker infections .
If you look at the graph of what got hit how bad ( http : //www.confickerworkinggroup.org/wiki/uploads/ANY/conficker-all-2009-small.png ) you see that RIPE and APNIC are again way overrepresented in relation to the whole.Now I 've not done a scientific study on this , I 'll admit , but I do have a reasonable data set and it just does n't match with what I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason being that when I look at our firewall logs or when we happen to get a system compromised, the US is way underrepresented.
The US accounts for a very large portion of the Internet still, and we are located in the US so you might expect to see most attacks from there.
However the majority are RIPE or APNIC addresses.
You can also see it in things like Conficker infections.
If you look at the graph of what got hit how bad (http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/wiki/uploads/ANY/conficker-all-2009-small.png) you see that RIPE and APNIC are again way overrepresented in relation to the whole.Now I've not done a scientific study on this, I'll admit, but I do have a reasonable data set and it just doesn't match with what I've seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549306</id>
	<title>They're all scum</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1269098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet every ISP wants to be a Superior Carrier of Utmost Magnificence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet every ISP wants to be a Superior Carrier of Utmost Magnificence ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet every ISP wants to be a Superior Carrier of Utmost Magnificence ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549158</id>
	<title>New Jersey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And New Jersey is responsible for crack problems in inner cities, because so much crack is transported on I95.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And New Jersey is responsible for crack problems in inner cities , because so much crack is transported on I95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And New Jersey is responsible for crack problems in inner cities, because so much crack is transported on I95.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549390</id>
	<title>Re:ThePlanet</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1269099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It is a shame that ThePlanet is doing so badly.</i>

</p><p>When I blocked ThePlanet, my silly traffic dropped noticeably.  Every day, sometimes two or three times a day, I was getting hacked at from the ThePlanet IP range.  Blocking them was a big relief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a shame that ThePlanet is doing so badly .
When I blocked ThePlanet , my silly traffic dropped noticeably .
Every day , sometimes two or three times a day , I was getting hacked at from the ThePlanet IP range .
Blocking them was a big relief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is a shame that ThePlanet is doing so badly.
When I blocked ThePlanet, my silly traffic dropped noticeably.
Every day, sometimes two or three times a day, I was getting hacked at from the ThePlanet IP range.
Blocking them was a big relief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549234</id>
	<title>Wow, I feel bad for ThePlanet.com</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1269097500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These measurements might not be 100\% accurate at identifying the root of each of the problem areas, but when an ISP is on all but one of the top ten lists, you have to start wondering what they are doing wrong.  ThePlanet.com, what gives?  Too many undereducated customers running infected servers?  No top level detection and deactivation process in place?  Seems like there are a lot of things missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These measurements might not be 100 \ % accurate at identifying the root of each of the problem areas , but when an ISP is on all but one of the top ten lists , you have to start wondering what they are doing wrong .
ThePlanet.com , what gives ?
Too many undereducated customers running infected servers ?
No top level detection and deactivation process in place ?
Seems like there are a lot of things missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These measurements might not be 100\% accurate at identifying the root of each of the problem areas, but when an ISP is on all but one of the top ten lists, you have to start wondering what they are doing wrong.
ThePlanet.com, what gives?
Too many undereducated customers running infected servers?
No top level detection and deactivation process in place?
Seems like there are a lot of things missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31551272</id>
	<title>Re:ThePlanet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269115980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly anyone who thinks ThePlanet provides good quality hosting probably isn't a very serious system or network admin. Their network is terrible, the perform is surely good enough for personal blogs but frankly those of us who have to make informed decisions to keep networks running would never host on that tier of colo provider. There are plenty of ThePlanet horror stories, coupled with the fact that their network is pretty damn slow to begin with. Frankly anyone selling cheap unlimited service is going to give you a level of service that is not mission-critical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly anyone who thinks ThePlanet provides good quality hosting probably is n't a very serious system or network admin .
Their network is terrible , the perform is surely good enough for personal blogs but frankly those of us who have to make informed decisions to keep networks running would never host on that tier of colo provider .
There are plenty of ThePlanet horror stories , coupled with the fact that their network is pretty damn slow to begin with .
Frankly anyone selling cheap unlimited service is going to give you a level of service that is not mission-critical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly anyone who thinks ThePlanet provides good quality hosting probably isn't a very serious system or network admin.
Their network is terrible, the perform is surely good enough for personal blogs but frankly those of us who have to make informed decisions to keep networks running would never host on that tier of colo provider.
There are plenty of ThePlanet horror stories, coupled with the fact that their network is pretty damn slow to begin with.
Frankly anyone selling cheap unlimited service is going to give you a level of service that is not mission-critical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31550370</id>
	<title>Re:Network neutrality</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1269109260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k\_GxXRbSFDg" title="youtube.com">the reference</a> [youtube.com] to make it make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the reference [ youtube.com ] to make it make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the reference [youtube.com] to make it make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328</id>
	<title>Laughable</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1269098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone (home user/corporate etc) care about any of that?  It doesn't make their network/access any less safe.  People go for cost, then performance.  If I can get a good deal from an ISP, why do I care about how many follow customers are incapable of managing their systems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone ( home user/corporate etc ) care about any of that ?
It does n't make their network/access any less safe .
People go for cost , then performance .
If I can get a good deal from an ISP , why do I care about how many follow customers are incapable of managing their systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone (home user/corporate etc) care about any of that?
It doesn't make their network/access any less safe.
People go for cost, then performance.
If I can get a good deal from an ISP, why do I care about how many follow customers are incapable of managing their systems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549246</id>
	<title>I think it'a about the same all over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the largest ISPs in Brazil, Locaweb, is the main source of spam and malware I get and it's not only about numbers. They just ignore every single complain I've done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the largest ISPs in Brazil , Locaweb , is the main source of spam and malware I get and it 's not only about numbers .
They just ignore every single complain I 've done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the largest ISPs in Brazil, Locaweb, is the main source of spam and malware I get and it's not only about numbers.
They just ignore every single complain I've done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549600</id>
	<title>Ohhhhh Please!</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all <b>demand</b> huge bandwidth, huge amounts of storage and we want it for 19.95 a month.</p><p>Do you wonder why everything is over sold?  I mean, really do you?</p><p>How much does a really sharp *nix admin.engineer cost annually?</p><p>Even with really good tools how many physical boxes can on guy keep watch over?  How about when each box is hosting 300 accounts, or running 10 VM's?  What would anyone guesstimate?  Maybe each box is only hosting 30 accounts?  I mean the numbers start to add up.</p><p>Lets say just for sake of argument that a really good admin can handle the care and feeding of 100 servers.  That guy costs you 60K a year benefits and all.  You need three shifts because you run 24/7 so that is 180K right there.  Lets say you have 10,000 servers do now we are taking 100 guys * 3 shifts so 300 admins * 60,000.00 per year. So payroll just for the admins is 18 million a year and we have not given anyone the weekend off, so that number is a bit low.</p><p>You have not yet paid for all the hardware or your bandwidth bill.  So right now at 19.95 a month you need about 900,000 customers.</p><p>Uhmmm for some reason those numbers just don't pencil.  So thats why ISP's have to oversell everything AND turn a blind eye to a lot of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all demand huge bandwidth , huge amounts of storage and we want it for 19.95 a month.Do you wonder why everything is over sold ?
I mean , really do you ? How much does a really sharp * nix admin.engineer cost annually ? Even with really good tools how many physical boxes can on guy keep watch over ?
How about when each box is hosting 300 accounts , or running 10 VM 's ?
What would anyone guesstimate ?
Maybe each box is only hosting 30 accounts ?
I mean the numbers start to add up.Lets say just for sake of argument that a really good admin can handle the care and feeding of 100 servers .
That guy costs you 60K a year benefits and all .
You need three shifts because you run 24/7 so that is 180K right there .
Lets say you have 10,000 servers do now we are taking 100 guys * 3 shifts so 300 admins * 60,000.00 per year .
So payroll just for the admins is 18 million a year and we have not given anyone the weekend off , so that number is a bit low.You have not yet paid for all the hardware or your bandwidth bill .
So right now at 19.95 a month you need about 900,000 customers.Uhmmm for some reason those numbers just do n't pencil .
So thats why ISP 's have to oversell everything AND turn a blind eye to a lot of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all demand huge bandwidth, huge amounts of storage and we want it for 19.95 a month.Do you wonder why everything is over sold?
I mean, really do you?How much does a really sharp *nix admin.engineer cost annually?Even with really good tools how many physical boxes can on guy keep watch over?
How about when each box is hosting 300 accounts, or running 10 VM's?
What would anyone guesstimate?
Maybe each box is only hosting 30 accounts?
I mean the numbers start to add up.Lets say just for sake of argument that a really good admin can handle the care and feeding of 100 servers.
That guy costs you 60K a year benefits and all.
You need three shifts because you run 24/7 so that is 180K right there.
Lets say you have 10,000 servers do now we are taking 100 guys * 3 shifts so 300 admins * 60,000.00 per year.
So payroll just for the admins is 18 million a year and we have not given anyone the weekend off, so that number is a bit low.You have not yet paid for all the hardware or your bandwidth bill.
So right now at 19.95 a month you need about 900,000 customers.Uhmmm for some reason those numbers just don't pencil.
So thats why ISP's have to oversell everything AND turn a blind eye to a lot of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31583906</id>
	<title>Re:Laughable</title>
	<author>discogravy</author>
	<datestamp>1269360240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because when the IP address block that was assigned to your IP is blacklisted, you won't be able to do shit except switch ISPs, then switch all your DNS entries (if you're a corp user) or hang out all day waiting for your new cable/dsl/whatever tech to show up to plug in your shiny new cable/dsl/whatever modem.

That's why you would care about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>because when the IP address block that was assigned to your IP is blacklisted , you wo n't be able to do shit except switch ISPs , then switch all your DNS entries ( if you 're a corp user ) or hang out all day waiting for your new cable/dsl/whatever tech to show up to plug in your shiny new cable/dsl/whatever modem .
That 's why you would care about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because when the IP address block that was assigned to your IP is blacklisted, you won't be able to do shit except switch ISPs, then switch all your DNS entries (if you're a corp user) or hang out all day waiting for your new cable/dsl/whatever tech to show up to plug in your shiny new cable/dsl/whatever modem.
That's why you would care about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549142</id>
	<title>naming/disempowering unprecedented evile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269096480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>call it what you like, it's all around us.</p><p>never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators. the lights are coming up all over now as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>call it what you like , it 's all around us.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators .
the lights are coming up all over now as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>call it what you like, it's all around us.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators.
the lights are coming up all over now as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549760</id>
	<title>Gee, who would have guessed?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big and cheap providers are on the top 10 lists of spam and malware? Really? Wow, I am surprised... NOT.</p><p>Let's be sensible for a moment and ponder: Why are ISPs hosting a lot of pages a main source of malware? Because they are a main source of traffic and webpages. It's like saying that there are more people in jail in the US than in, say, Andorra. Thus the US are much, much more violent and generally people there must be kinda leaning towards crime, right?</p><p>And cheap service means that they can not waste resources on hunting down malware providers. Hell, they can't even dedicate manpower to shutting them  down, as long as they're not held accountable for it. Simple calculation: Cost of hosting malware C&amp;C servers? Umm... a bit of traffic, compared to the rest probably not even noticable. Cost of hunting&amp;squishing it? Putting manpower behind it. Do the economy math...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big and cheap providers are on the top 10 lists of spam and malware ?
Really ? Wow , I am surprised... NOT.Let 's be sensible for a moment and ponder : Why are ISPs hosting a lot of pages a main source of malware ?
Because they are a main source of traffic and webpages .
It 's like saying that there are more people in jail in the US than in , say , Andorra .
Thus the US are much , much more violent and generally people there must be kinda leaning towards crime , right ? And cheap service means that they can not waste resources on hunting down malware providers .
Hell , they ca n't even dedicate manpower to shutting them down , as long as they 're not held accountable for it .
Simple calculation : Cost of hosting malware C&amp;C servers ?
Umm... a bit of traffic , compared to the rest probably not even noticable .
Cost of hunting&amp;squishing it ?
Putting manpower behind it .
Do the economy math.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big and cheap providers are on the top 10 lists of spam and malware?
Really? Wow, I am surprised... NOT.Let's be sensible for a moment and ponder: Why are ISPs hosting a lot of pages a main source of malware?
Because they are a main source of traffic and webpages.
It's like saying that there are more people in jail in the US than in, say, Andorra.
Thus the US are much, much more violent and generally people there must be kinda leaning towards crime, right?And cheap service means that they can not waste resources on hunting down malware providers.
Hell, they can't even dedicate manpower to shutting them  down, as long as they're not held accountable for it.
Simple calculation: Cost of hosting malware C&amp;C servers?
Umm... a bit of traffic, compared to the rest probably not even noticable.
Cost of hunting&amp;squishing it?
Putting manpower behind it.
Do the economy math...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549750</id>
	<title>Old-timer comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when ISPs used to seriously police their users, because there was the potential for them (the ISP) to get kicked off the internet, and have that stick.  Network admins listened to complaints from other admins, and if they concluded that a given ISP wasn't keeping house and letting too many net.abusers on, they were considered a rogue ISP and <i>cut off</i>.  The rogue net couldn't just call up another network access provider and get reconnected, because their reputation preceded them.  I'm not saying I'd want to go back to that (even if it were possible), but as a believer in personal responsibility, I miss those days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when ISPs used to seriously police their users , because there was the potential for them ( the ISP ) to get kicked off the internet , and have that stick .
Network admins listened to complaints from other admins , and if they concluded that a given ISP was n't keeping house and letting too many net.abusers on , they were considered a rogue ISP and cut off .
The rogue net could n't just call up another network access provider and get reconnected , because their reputation preceded them .
I 'm not saying I 'd want to go back to that ( even if it were possible ) , but as a believer in personal responsibility , I miss those days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when ISPs used to seriously police their users, because there was the potential for them (the ISP) to get kicked off the internet, and have that stick.
Network admins listened to complaints from other admins, and if they concluded that a given ISP wasn't keeping house and letting too many net.abusers on, they were considered a rogue ISP and cut off.
The rogue net couldn't just call up another network access provider and get reconnected, because their reputation preceded them.
I'm not saying I'd want to go back to that (even if it were possible), but as a believer in personal responsibility, I miss those days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31554282</id>
	<title>Re:Network neutrality</title>
	<author>Nunavut</author>
	<datestamp>1269096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sit ubu sit</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sit ubu sit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sit ubu sit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31552094</id>
	<title>block lists</title>
	<author>GarretSidzaka</author>
	<datestamp>1269079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i recommend peer guardian for some huge lists of malicious IP's</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i recommend peer guardian for some huge lists of malicious IP 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i recommend peer guardian for some huge lists of malicious IP's</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549488</id>
	<title>Re:Laughable</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269100080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it does make your network less safe. Having the script kiddies, the spammers, and the harvesters active on your subnet exposes you much more directly to their abuses, and to the likelihood that your logs will be cluttered with the attacks from their servers. It also gets \_you\_ added to email blacklists and routing table blackholes, because your customers may be tired of the abuse from your network and find it far simply to simply block you.</p><p>The expense of a more reliable and secure server is an issue. But there's nothing like the self-righteous DDOS attacks that have occurred against networks that serve abusers to clutter the traffic of even innocent clients: it imperils the service for legitimate, paying customers. Cases like "agis.net", who hosted the Cyberpromo spammers before a DDOS against them finally got them to take action, make a fascinating study in the risks of hosting abusers. Conversely, xinnet.com in China is happy to host spammers: with the size of their service and the limited choices available to consumers in China, they're effectively immune from prosecution or attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it does make your network less safe .
Having the script kiddies , the spammers , and the harvesters active on your subnet exposes you much more directly to their abuses , and to the likelihood that your logs will be cluttered with the attacks from their servers .
It also gets \ _you \ _ added to email blacklists and routing table blackholes , because your customers may be tired of the abuse from your network and find it far simply to simply block you.The expense of a more reliable and secure server is an issue .
But there 's nothing like the self-righteous DDOS attacks that have occurred against networks that serve abusers to clutter the traffic of even innocent clients : it imperils the service for legitimate , paying customers .
Cases like " agis.net " , who hosted the Cyberpromo spammers before a DDOS against them finally got them to take action , make a fascinating study in the risks of hosting abusers .
Conversely , xinnet.com in China is happy to host spammers : with the size of their service and the limited choices available to consumers in China , they 're effectively immune from prosecution or attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it does make your network less safe.
Having the script kiddies, the spammers, and the harvesters active on your subnet exposes you much more directly to their abuses, and to the likelihood that your logs will be cluttered with the attacks from their servers.
It also gets \_you\_ added to email blacklists and routing table blackholes, because your customers may be tired of the abuse from your network and find it far simply to simply block you.The expense of a more reliable and secure server is an issue.
But there's nothing like the self-righteous DDOS attacks that have occurred against networks that serve abusers to clutter the traffic of even innocent clients: it imperils the service for legitimate, paying customers.
Cases like "agis.net", who hosted the Cyberpromo spammers before a DDOS against them finally got them to take action, make a fascinating study in the risks of hosting abusers.
Conversely, xinnet.com in China is happy to host spammers: with the size of their service and the limited choices available to consumers in China, they're effectively immune from prosecution or attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549914</id>
	<title>litigation mitigation</title>
	<author>anomalous cohort</author>
	<datestamp>1269105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why should corporations care? Two words "litigation exposure." A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day. They will see you in court. Good luck with that "don't blame me, blame my ISP" defense.
</p><p>
I think that kind of "not my problem" thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze. Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they <a href="http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/future-of-work/misunderstanding-the-cloud-35315" title="toolbox.com">outsource IT to the cloud</a> [toolbox.com]. Good luck with that too.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should corporations care ?
Two words " litigation exposure .
" A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day .
They will see you in court .
Good luck with that " do n't blame me , blame my ISP " defense .
I think that kind of " not my problem " thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze .
Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud [ toolbox.com ] .
Good luck with that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why should corporations care?
Two words "litigation exposure.
" A bot-net living in your network takes down an e-commerce site for day.
They will see you in court.
Good luck with that "don't blame me, blame my ISP" defense.
I think that kind of "not my problem" thinking is what is driving the current cloud computing craze.
Corporations seem to think that they can side step the accountability hassle if they outsource IT to the cloud [toolbox.com].
Good luck with that too.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31553200</id>
	<title>Re:ThePlanet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being on this list is a good thing really. It means you aren't interfering with your customers activities though if you think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being on this list is a good thing really .
It means you are n't interfering with your customers activities though if you think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being on this list is a good thing really.
It means you aren't interfering with your customers activities though if you think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31553384</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, I feel bad for ThePlanet.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked in ThePlanet's department that was responsible for security before leaving several months ago.  I can tell you that it's not that they don't care about security, it's that they treat their admins like absolute shit.  I wish I could go into details but knowing how malicious my managers were makes me hesitant even posting as AC.  In my department, we had every admin with more than a year of experience leave within a three month period (myself included).  The replacements for us had to be trained from scratch... as in most of them didn't know how to restart Apache.  Being serious about security is worthless if you don't have anyone to deal with security issues.</p><p>The only thing ThePlanet cares about is sales.  Their sales team (who have no idea what their own servers are capable of) is allowed to promise you absolutely anything if it will make the sale.  I lost count of the number of times I had to deal with customers who had been promised that a single server could send out over 1,000,000 emails per day (and I'm sure none of that is spam).  The fact that they would promise something like that to begin with should say a lot about how little they about the type of customer they're trying to attract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked in ThePlanet 's department that was responsible for security before leaving several months ago .
I can tell you that it 's not that they do n't care about security , it 's that they treat their admins like absolute shit .
I wish I could go into details but knowing how malicious my managers were makes me hesitant even posting as AC .
In my department , we had every admin with more than a year of experience leave within a three month period ( myself included ) .
The replacements for us had to be trained from scratch... as in most of them did n't know how to restart Apache .
Being serious about security is worthless if you do n't have anyone to deal with security issues.The only thing ThePlanet cares about is sales .
Their sales team ( who have no idea what their own servers are capable of ) is allowed to promise you absolutely anything if it will make the sale .
I lost count of the number of times I had to deal with customers who had been promised that a single server could send out over 1,000,000 emails per day ( and I 'm sure none of that is spam ) .
The fact that they would promise something like that to begin with should say a lot about how little they about the type of customer they 're trying to attract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked in ThePlanet's department that was responsible for security before leaving several months ago.
I can tell you that it's not that they don't care about security, it's that they treat their admins like absolute shit.
I wish I could go into details but knowing how malicious my managers were makes me hesitant even posting as AC.
In my department, we had every admin with more than a year of experience leave within a three month period (myself included).
The replacements for us had to be trained from scratch... as in most of them didn't know how to restart Apache.
Being serious about security is worthless if you don't have anyone to deal with security issues.The only thing ThePlanet cares about is sales.
Their sales team (who have no idea what their own servers are capable of) is allowed to promise you absolutely anything if it will make the sale.
I lost count of the number of times I had to deal with customers who had been promised that a single server could send out over 1,000,000 emails per day (and I'm sure none of that is spam).
The fact that they would promise something like that to begin with should say a lot about how little they about the type of customer they're trying to attract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549486</id>
	<title>It's not my problem, my customer is doing this!</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1269100080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big hosting providers ALL have the same attitude when you contact them about abuse:</p><p>"WE aren't doing this, that is one of the customers of one of our resellers, we won't do anything, talk to the reseller."</p><p>Of course, the reseller says "Screw you, they are paying us good money and you aren't."</p><p>Softlayer is a VERY good example of this: a Softlayer hosted site has repeatedly been spamming the Wine Developers mailing list for their crap. I have personally emailed Softlayer about it on more than 10 separate occasions, and have heard ZERO back from them. They don't care (even though their site claims they are aggressively anti-spam - BULLSHIT! words are cheap, actions are not, and Softlayer HASN'T ACTED!)</p><p>The spam problem isn't complicated to solve, it is actually pretty simple to solve (though not EASY to solve!) - just follow the "shit flows downstream" principle. If a host is doing bad things, look up who owns the network they are on, and MAKE IT THAT ENTITIE'S PROBLEM to solve it. However the problem is solved - be it "Hey, your server's infected" "OOPS fixed now sorry!", be it "We have blocked outgoing connections from your system until you fix it.", be it "Boss axed me an' Nunzio to has a talk wit ju about youses' server...." - doesn't matter as long as the problem gets solved. If it DOESN'T get solved, then the network owner becomes the problem entity, and you move to their hosts.</p><p>The only hard part is bringing some form of negative consequences to bear upon the network owners - you either need a law (and then you have a hard time dealing with systems outside your law's reach - all you can do is place the problem on the point of demarcation to your jurisdiction), or you need something with a wider reach, like publicity.</p><p>(and to all you morons about to copy and paste the "spam solutions form" - that meme is old enough to drink and vote, let it die already, OK?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big hosting providers ALL have the same attitude when you contact them about abuse : " WE are n't doing this , that is one of the customers of one of our resellers , we wo n't do anything , talk to the reseller .
" Of course , the reseller says " Screw you , they are paying us good money and you are n't .
" Softlayer is a VERY good example of this : a Softlayer hosted site has repeatedly been spamming the Wine Developers mailing list for their crap .
I have personally emailed Softlayer about it on more than 10 separate occasions , and have heard ZERO back from them .
They do n't care ( even though their site claims they are aggressively anti-spam - BULLSHIT !
words are cheap , actions are not , and Softlayer HAS N'T ACTED !
) The spam problem is n't complicated to solve , it is actually pretty simple to solve ( though not EASY to solve !
) - just follow the " shit flows downstream " principle .
If a host is doing bad things , look up who owns the network they are on , and MAKE IT THAT ENTITIE 'S PROBLEM to solve it .
However the problem is solved - be it " Hey , your server 's infected " " OOPS fixed now sorry !
" , be it " We have blocked outgoing connections from your system until you fix it .
" , be it " Boss axed me an ' Nunzio to has a talk wit ju about youses ' server.... " - does n't matter as long as the problem gets solved .
If it DOES N'T get solved , then the network owner becomes the problem entity , and you move to their hosts.The only hard part is bringing some form of negative consequences to bear upon the network owners - you either need a law ( and then you have a hard time dealing with systems outside your law 's reach - all you can do is place the problem on the point of demarcation to your jurisdiction ) , or you need something with a wider reach , like publicity .
( and to all you morons about to copy and paste the " spam solutions form " - that meme is old enough to drink and vote , let it die already , OK ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big hosting providers ALL have the same attitude when you contact them about abuse:"WE aren't doing this, that is one of the customers of one of our resellers, we won't do anything, talk to the reseller.
"Of course, the reseller says "Screw you, they are paying us good money and you aren't.
"Softlayer is a VERY good example of this: a Softlayer hosted site has repeatedly been spamming the Wine Developers mailing list for their crap.
I have personally emailed Softlayer about it on more than 10 separate occasions, and have heard ZERO back from them.
They don't care (even though their site claims they are aggressively anti-spam - BULLSHIT!
words are cheap, actions are not, and Softlayer HASN'T ACTED!
)The spam problem isn't complicated to solve, it is actually pretty simple to solve (though not EASY to solve!
) - just follow the "shit flows downstream" principle.
If a host is doing bad things, look up who owns the network they are on, and MAKE IT THAT ENTITIE'S PROBLEM to solve it.
However the problem is solved - be it "Hey, your server's infected" "OOPS fixed now sorry!
", be it "We have blocked outgoing connections from your system until you fix it.
", be it "Boss axed me an' Nunzio to has a talk wit ju about youses' server...." - doesn't matter as long as the problem gets solved.
If it DOESN'T get solved, then the network owner becomes the problem entity, and you move to their hosts.The only hard part is bringing some form of negative consequences to bear upon the network owners - you either need a law (and then you have a hard time dealing with systems outside your law's reach - all you can do is place the problem on the point of demarcation to your jurisdiction), or you need something with a wider reach, like publicity.
(and to all you morons about to copy and paste the "spam solutions form" - that meme is old enough to drink and vote, let it die already, OK?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31551528</id>
	<title>Re:ThePlanet</title>
	<author>EvilIdler</author>
	<datestamp>1269117960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the hands-off approach is necessary when you have tens of thousands of servers rented out for cheap. When some IPs have been tainted, there should be more pressure on the server owners to get rid of the bad users and get them off the lists.</p><p>I've had some customer sites with Hostnine, who use ThePlanet servers. It's pretty bad, because you have no choice of IPs. You'll get a random IP from the location you choose (a few US locations, Singapore, England), and it's a lottery. Most people don't win. Mail being sent from it doesn't reach some places, only rarely making it as far as the spam folder. They are in the process of fixing this now, due to massive customer complaints. But I get the impression H9 are struggling to get the IPs off the lists, while ThePlanet aren't really doing much.</p><p>Now I'm with Hetzner, and I've fortunately got clean IPs. Due to the way I select customers (it's only a side-business, or friend service) I'm safe from spammers on the inside. Now to keep the usual hackers off my sites (thanks, fail2ban)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the hands-off approach is necessary when you have tens of thousands of servers rented out for cheap .
When some IPs have been tainted , there should be more pressure on the server owners to get rid of the bad users and get them off the lists.I 've had some customer sites with Hostnine , who use ThePlanet servers .
It 's pretty bad , because you have no choice of IPs .
You 'll get a random IP from the location you choose ( a few US locations , Singapore , England ) , and it 's a lottery .
Most people do n't win .
Mail being sent from it does n't reach some places , only rarely making it as far as the spam folder .
They are in the process of fixing this now , due to massive customer complaints .
But I get the impression H9 are struggling to get the IPs off the lists , while ThePlanet are n't really doing much.Now I 'm with Hetzner , and I 've fortunately got clean IPs .
Due to the way I select customers ( it 's only a side-business , or friend service ) I 'm safe from spammers on the inside .
Now to keep the usual hackers off my sites ( thanks , fail2ban ) : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the hands-off approach is necessary when you have tens of thousands of servers rented out for cheap.
When some IPs have been tainted, there should be more pressure on the server owners to get rid of the bad users and get them off the lists.I've had some customer sites with Hostnine, who use ThePlanet servers.
It's pretty bad, because you have no choice of IPs.
You'll get a random IP from the location you choose (a few US locations, Singapore, England), and it's a lottery.
Most people don't win.
Mail being sent from it doesn't reach some places, only rarely making it as far as the spam folder.
They are in the process of fixing this now, due to massive customer complaints.
But I get the impression H9 are struggling to get the IPs off the lists, while ThePlanet aren't really doing much.Now I'm with Hetzner, and I've fortunately got clean IPs.
Due to the way I select customers (it's only a side-business, or friend service) I'm safe from spammers on the inside.
Now to keep the usual hackers off my sites (thanks, fail2ban) :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31551272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31553384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31551528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31552720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31583906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31553200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31550370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1210213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31554282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31583906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31550370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31554282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31553384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31551528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31551272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31553200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31552720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1210213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1210213.31549158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
