New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
This is for sure a horrible experience.. can you provide the email that was sent to you and you didn't respond in time ?
Maybe read the thread???
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/931185/#Comment_931185
It says they have received an abuse complaint.
Has that happend multiple times, yes or no? What was the abuse complaint(s) about?
I see you have posted a screenshot and saying "my service was not responsible". But, were you doing something else on that box?
Edit:
According to these two sites, your IP has been spamming. Running a open proxy will do that to you, and it's up to them if they want to tolerate that or not afaik?
Almost every VPS provider reserves the right to terminate service. Still, it's a dick move to completely terminate an account over something like CoralCDN. It also demonstrates the stupidity of the people sending abuse notices.
I know that IP had a bunch of pharm comment spam from it a while back. It and a couple of others are why vultr ups are blocked.
@ivanivanov
If this thread was a game, you should realise you are on the loosing side.
I have received a single complaint, to which I replied in time (Ticket:AFN-866QL): http://snag.gy/TMBDV.jpg
Two weeks later, I received a reply (Ticket:AFN-866QL): http://snag.gy/flmsM.jpg
After this response , my account has been deleted.
I'm the developer of the server. My server does not support any other protocols besides http. Sending spam from my server is technically impossible!
Yet there it is. You are running an open proxy service that can be used for spam (all you have to do is add the URL in front of yours and let the bots go crazy).
You are responsible for what your users do, unfortunately. It is right there in the Vultr tos/antispam policy.
(The spam report i found seem to indicate that it is forum-spam, which is easy to do via your service over http.)
Imagine, tomorrow morning the police knocks on your door and asks you to leave your house immediately. Being asked for justification they tell you "You broke a law. Note that all laws are available online. There you can find the reason why we burn down your house right now"
I think, everybody would agree that that's utterly inacceptable.
But that's analog to what Vultr did.
"You acted against our rules (link to rules)" maybe acceptable, if nonsensical, when warning a client. If however, a provider shuts down service, he must at least provide concrete and tangible reasons.
Vultr didn't do that. So Vultr is in breach of contract. Simple as that.
And btw., NO, a provider is not free to break a contract whenever he feels like it. He too is bound to act according to contract and law.
Result, for me -> Vultr is black listed.
Are you sure? All we see here is a one sided story from a 1 post member. Proves nothing.
What kind of proof are you waiting for ?
And I see he received multiple emails that he did not show. For all we know they did give a specific reason. They also specify "multiple breaches" which indicate it has happened before (although we might never know for sure).
I'm not saying it wasn't a dick move on Vultrs part, but I don't blame them. There are errors on both parts here if anything.
@Lee
I get your point but this doesn't look like the typical "wahwah they're so evil! Hardly had I sent 25 bln unsolicited emails they closed my account!" case.
His server is shut down. And at least from what we can know Vultr pulled off a typical "I'm in control of the power cable. Shoot first, ask later" thing.
And we do have proof of them not properly specifying his (alleged) sin. THAT is the point that p-sses me off.
Maybe he did bad things, intentionally or unknowingly; I can't judge that and I don't want to.
But before a provider shuts down a payed in advance service he must a least a) clearly and properly specify the "sin" b) offer some adequate opportunity to save the content c) keep a communication line open, and d) provide adequate proof.
Quick search:
@Lee, @mrtz
Uhm, it's the shutting down provider who has to prove, not the potentially victimzed client.
Also the client did show relevant communication. Now there is mistrust because he didn't show all messages. Uhum. What's next? Witnesses that swear to his reputation? Control of his underwear?
The law is basically simple. The client payed in advance. So he fulfilled his part of the contract and the provider is f-cking bound to provide service. Unless the client goes against contract clauses (e.g. spamming, DDOS, etc.). For which the provider is to provide proof.
Did Vultr provide proof? not from what we know so far. What we do know, however, is that some clerk vaguely and generally pointed at TOS/AUP which strongly suggests that Vultr doesn't care batsh-t about law and contract and play it wild west style.
An open proxy might not be prohibited in their ToS, but as someone already pointed out, someone who used the open proxy could easily and ultimately have been abusive or perhaps done something illegal.
Since you're responsible for the proxy and you didn't reply, it seems you fit the pattern of abuse they often see, i.e. abusers are not going to defend themselves and simply move on to the next host.
TL;DR, if you're going to run an open proxy, have a couple of prewritten replies ready and be prepared for these scenarios.
Out of curiosity, why are you running one anyway? They're usually in boiler plate terms of service templates, alongside hosting malware, etc.
@bsdguy
From the screenshot I saw it was pretty clear to me that the issue at hand was the open proxy and the user refusing to close it down because of some project was/is accepted there.
Basicly telling Vultr to change their terms.
Its sad when it happens but I'm on Vultrs side in this. (Until proof that supports OPs side is presented)
@bsdguy
In the images shown, yes you are entirely correct. I'm not saying there is more, I'm saying it seems to be more.
If I am to interpret your post as litterally as you seem to interpret others, you are saying it is totally OK if he only choose to show what is in his favor.
The client did go against contract clauses (see Vultrs site, if you consider the ToS / Anti-spam policy and such a contract), and the provider acted as specified in those documents. I do agree however, that they should (if they didn't) have given a specific account as to why it was being terminated.
This ^^ I have no trust in the reliability of someone who joins to post this kind of thing. On LET there is a very high probability the OP is not telling the full story, revealing all the emails or whatever.
I am not defending either party, just stating it as it is. And for that reason...
"sink" - nobody from Vultr will chime in so this is going nowhere.
A lot of "could" and "would" and "well it's not prohibited but it might be indirectly".
And I'm still with you, anyway. That's not the point.
But you can't shut down a servic based on "could" and "would". There was abuse or there was none. If there was, they must a) spell that out clearly and b) prove it.
Nope. All he did was engaging in a reasonable discussion along the line of "I understand that you might mistake my project as evil but it, in fact, is not. It's merely ..."
To which a reasonable provider could have responded "Maybe, I don't care, I don't want that kind of thing in my network. Either stop it or ask a pro-rata refund, save your stuff and find hosting elsewhere" or he could've said "Hmm, well, sounds reasonable. We'll give it a try. But be prepared that we might come to the conclusion that we will not continue accepting that project on our servers".
Just look at how he is pre-condemned! "choose to show what is in his favor" makes him look bad and shows you assuming he wants to hide something. Why?
Maybe he simply chose the relevant messages. We don't know. What we do know is that he did show the "final communication status".
And btw, it's not his fault that Vultr communicates lousily. Had they communicated properly "You have gone against rule XYZ and our monitoring/logs show that you machine caused ABC" we would have a clearer picture. And so would he.
Fraud Record Report:
^--- Sounds familiar.
Plus multiple abuse incidents ignored and repeated.
I'm not sure I would ever read a fraud record report from GVH and consider it credible data.
That said, yes an open proxy is bad. Yes abuse reports should include evidence. No you should not ignore them.
You asshole, I just said nobody from Vultr would respond. You did that on purpose. :P
Cool! Someone at GVH (reputation?) says something and bingo we have "proof". In fact, that doesn't even show who's that guy.
No, we don't.
Oh, and btw, weren't those fraud reports meant to be looked up when a service is about to be bought? Looks like Vultr accepted some client and only now comes up with a pretty shady "report".
Funny, though, how some "report" at some site of doubtful credibility enjoys credibility while an complaining client is considered guilty until proven innocent.
Even the fact that Vultr seems to simply have kept his advance payment doesn't seem to disturb many here.
Result: I'll have Vultr marked in red in my black list for suspicion of trickery, law ignorance, and fraud.
This is a lie.
There was only one incident, to which I replied.
The second incident I could not even read because you deleted my account.
@ivanivanov, why you do run an open proxy?
@bsdguy And now you are doing the exact same thing you accused me of, just the other way around
I still feel like both parties have their hare of blame in this one. One ran an open proxy service which could be abused (and apparently was), the other terminated the contract without providing sufficient evidence.
@bsdguy
From the 1st screenshot we can see that there has been emails sent before regarding abuse reports where OPs service had some part in.
The visible response from the OP says that he is not running any phishing operations but admits to run an open proxy on his server.
1 MONTH later (second email is sent Feb 20th, first screenshot shows email dates as Jan 27th) Vultr probably got fed up with forwarding abuse reports to someone that clearly ignores them and terminates the account.
We have no knowledge how many more abuse reports are sent between those dates and from the initial reply from the OP, he will ignore abuse reports unless it is delivered to him as a DMCA report. Leaving an open proxy for whoever to (ab)use as they see fit.
I said it before, from the screenshots provided by the OP I have no sympathy for him in this case unless more evidence is provided that would change my mind.
To make money from showing the ads . And for the promotion of my anonymizer