BPServ pulled the box over one abuse email. So much for DMCA ignored.

BPServ pull my box on Tuesday. One abuse mail, no warning, no window. So much for DMCA ignored.

Was small test thing, nothing important, but is not the point. I pay sixty five dollar month for shop that write on front page adult, casino, pharma, DMCA content, all welcome. Then one complaint arrive and box is gone in same day.

Anyway before somebody say I put wrong thing there — was a redirect node. Nothing on it. Nothing to complain about except the redirect.

Somebody else have this with them or is only me.

DMCA or abuse? Those are different desks and only one of them is in the marketing.

Abuse. Network abuse, they say outbound scan. Was not me.

Mail they forward is automatic report from some monitoring company, list of timestamp and port, nothing a human write. I answer in one hour asking for the log. Box was already gone when I send it.

"Outbound scan" is the specific phrase, and IME it means one of three things, in descending order of how often I have seen it.

Your box was compromised and is scanning on someone else's behalf. This is the common one and people reject it instantly because they know they did not do it, which is not the same as it not happening. Second, something legitimate on the box looks like scanning to an automated detector — a monitoring loop, a health check hitting a range, a badly configured crawler. Third, a neighbour on the same /24 did it and the complaint got attributed by netblock rather than by address, which happens more than any host will admit.

You can usually tell which after the fact if you took the disk image before they wiped it, and you did not, because nobody does. For next time, ship logs off the box as they are written:

# /etc/rsyslog.d/90-remote.conf — logs leave before the box does
*.*  @@logs.internal:6514
$ActionQueueType LinkedList
$ActionQueueFileName remotefwd
$ActionResumeRetryCount -1
$ActionQueueSaveOnShutdown on

Without that, "was not me" is a thing you believe rather than a thing you can show, and the abuse desk has a machine-generated report and you have a feeling.

The marketing is not lying to you, you are reading it as a broader promise than it is.

DMCA-ignore is a policy about copyright complaints, which carry no automatic force and which the host is free to bin. Network abuse is different in kind: it comes from the upstream transit provider, not from a rightsholder's law firm, and the host cannot ignore it without losing transit. No bulletproof shop on earth is bulletproof against its own upstream. That is why every one of them has exclusions and why the exclusions are the only part of the terms worth reading.

You bought copyright tolerance. You did not buy, and could not have bought at any price, immunity from the people who sell them bandwidth.

I will go further than nullroute and say the whole category is mostly marketing now, and has been since about the time it got a price list.

In 2014 bulletproof meant a specific guy in a specific country who would tell a rightsholder to go away because he personally did not care and there was nothing anyone could practically do about it. It was a relationship, and the relationship was the product. What is sold now is a landing page with the word bulletproof on it, a Bitcoin checkout and an abuse desk that behaves like everyone else's the moment a complaint has any teeth. The difference is that you pay sixty-five dollars instead of five for it.

The exception I would still make is the old Swedish shop, and the reason is not their policy, it is that they have been raided and sued and are still there. Operating history is the only claim in this market that cannot be written on a page by a marketing person.

That is too broad and I think it does people a disservice, because the difference between hosts in this tier is real and it is measurable — just not on the axis vlad got burned on.

I have watched copyright complaints land at FlokiNET and go nowhere at all, repeatedly, which is exactly what their policy says will happen. That is not marketing, that is a host doing the thing. AbeloHost segments it explicitly: the cheap tier forwards, the offshore tier does not, and people who buy the cheap tier then come here and say the host is not bulletproof.

Depends what you're running. If what you generate is copyright complaints, the category works and it is worth the premium. If what you generate is network abuse reports, no host is going to shield you, and that is not the category failing, it is you buying the wrong product.

And in three years one of those two will have been sold, changed its posture overnight and everyone in this thread will be writing the same post about them. I have seen that cycle four times now.

I am not saying do not use them. I am saying the property you are buying is somebody's current mood plus a transit contract, and pricing it like a legal guarantee is how people end up surprised. We are not going to agree on this one and that is fine.

sixty five a month for a form letter with a clock on it