suspeneded accounts behavior!

[sfoma]

My point is that you cannot draw the conclusion that 40% of the customers (reference your above post) do not like something based on a statistically inept poll.

I agree, but it is very telling, don't you think?

[AndrewT]

This poll is quite meaningless due to the lack of appropriate choices. In short, by choosing "Yes, but only if I have directly been warned about the account first by e-mail " you are saying that we should leave other problematic accounts online and merely send out warning e-mails, even if the domain is causing security or performance problems on the server for everyone else.

That simply is not going to happen, ever. If it is only a minor situation where we can give a warning without suspension, we do. But if we're talking about an exploited script that is allowing visitors to execute commands on our servers (as it was in this case), the domain will immediatley be suspended and the reseller is sent an e-mail explaining this. The simple fact that the script in question here was years out of date must not be ignored.

Unless you have something relevant to the original topic please do not post.

[w3it]

This poll is quite meaningless due to the lack of appropriate choices. In short, by choosing "Yes, but only if I have directly been warned about the account first by e-mail " you are saying that we should leave other problematic accounts online and merely send out warning e-mails, even if the domain is causing security or performance problems on the server for everyone else.

That simply is not going to happen, ever. If it is only a minor situation where we can give a warning without suspension, we do. But if we're talking about an exploited script that is allowing visitors to execute commands on our servers (as it was in this case), the domain will immediatley be suspended and the reseller is sent an e-mail explaining this. The simple fact that the script in question here was years out of date must not be ignored.

Unless you have something relevant to the original topic please do not post.

This is merely clutching at straws.

Ok I placed the wrong text next to the yes option, but and its a big BUT, close to 40% have NOT voted the way you run your policy today.

So, with that in mind, if a poll was created offering options that you could enforce to get around an automatic client suspension, you can bet your bottom dollar that your automated suspension will loose by close to 40%.

Think about what options you can offer:
messenger contact, telephone, ip telephony, sms

Using these methods gets an instant communication to your reseller and I for one would pay an "emergency covering fee" for you to call me rather than see my clients site suspended. If you tried to call and I did not answer, so be it, but at least its proactive as opposed to down right destructive.


There are many ways to resolve a problem and sometimes it just takes a bit of a shake up to get a better solution. 40% seem to agree with me... albeit that it is just a poll on your forum?


Regards

[w3it]

I agree, but it is very telling, don't you think?

Well it looks like he doesn't but I am glad you can see what I am getting at.


Regards

[AndrewT]

Think about what options you can offer:
messenger contact, telephone, ip telephony, sms

Using these methods gets an instant communication to your reseller and I for one would pay an "emergency covering fee" for you to call me rather than see my clients site suspended. If you tried to call and I did not answer, so be it, but at least its proactive as opposed to down right destructive.

That is a possibility of offering it for an additional fee but quite honestly I don't see many people ever using it to make it worthwhile. You can just as easily setup your CCP e-mail to forward to your cell phone or something along those lines. Furthermore, most of the time that we do send out warnings for minor issues the end user never even reads them and then wonders why their site is suspended a few days later.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is dead and we're simply beating a dead horse. Everyone is free to make up their own mind, if they truly disliked our policies that much then they wouldn't be hosting here. I've made it extremely clear as to what our policies are and what actions we will take if necessary. The bottom line is that you failed to upgrade a script that was over 2 years old and it was exploited to run software on our servers to search for and exploit other old installations of phpBB. It would be absolutely absurd if we weren't to suspend an account in this instance. We have a responsibility both to our other customers and to internet users in general. Everyone, including us, has a ToS that they must abide by. No reputable host is going to allow software to be run on their servers that is actively searching for and exploiting scripts on other domains.

This topic is now closed and has been moved to a more appropriate forum.