<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A clue about spam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/</link>
	<description>writes on spam and admin issues</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Administrator</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-1037</link>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-1037</guid>
		<description>The way I see it, there are two main types of spam:
1)e-mail spam
2)linkspam

There are probably a few others. Usenet spam, spim etc. You should define spam a bit more. At least say that you don't use the word spam to mean e-mail spam alone. But otherwise, nice going, Eric. You're my hero...

Maybe we should have a spam unfriendly section for regular webhosts too? A place for webhosts to list themselves if they consider linkspam specifically grounds for termination?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The way I see it, there are two main types of spam:<br />
1)e-mail spam<br />
2)linkspam</p>
<p>There are probably a few others. Usenet spam, spim etc. You should define spam a bit more. At least say that you don&#8217;t use the word spam to mean e-mail spam alone. But otherwise, nice going, Eric. You&#8217;re my hero&#8230;</p>
<p>Maybe we should have a spam unfriendly section for regular webhosts too? A place for webhosts to list themselves if they consider linkspam specifically grounds for termination?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-1036</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-1036</guid>
		<description>Hey guys - this was added recently to our TOS/AUP (doorhost)

--------------
"Spamvertised" Domains: DoorHost.net holds a zero tolerence approach to the hosting of spamvertised domains on it's network. Spamvertised domains are any domain which is advertised by use of SPAM sent though networks outside of DoorHost.net's control and/or network.
--------------

Actually just busted someone for it - and it reminded me of this thread.

I think the reason most hosts don't have this included in their TOS is that it doesn't really affect their network at all. The only exception is if their provider doesn't allow it either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys - this was added recently to our TOS/AUP (doorhost)</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
&#8220;Spamvertised&#8221; Domains: DoorHost.net holds a zero tolerence approach to the hosting of spamvertised domains on it&#8217;s network. Spamvertised domains are any domain which is advertised by use of SPAM sent though networks outside of DoorHost.net&#8217;s control and/or network.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>Actually just busted someone for it - and it reminded me of this thread.</p>
<p>I think the reason most hosts don&#8217;t have this included in their TOS is that it doesn&#8217;t really affect their network at all. The only exception is if their provider doesn&#8217;t allow it either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Administrator</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-889</link>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-889</guid>
		<description>Ah, Brian. That's just brilliant! It's the first example I've seen of linkspamming included in an AUP!!!

I did a search, and found ChangeIP.com has also included linkspamming in the AUP. Way to go, guys!
http://www.changeip.com/termsofuse.asp

Seached for link spamming and AUP, and found this:
http://www.elirion.net/aup.php</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, Brian. That&#8217;s just brilliant! It&#8217;s the first example I&#8217;ve seen of linkspamming included in an AUP!!!</p>
<p>I did a search, and found ChangeIP.com has also included linkspamming in the AUP. Way to go, guys!<br />
<a href="http://www.changeip.com/termsofuse.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.changeip.com/termsofuse.asp</a></p>
<p>Seached for link spamming and AUP, and found this:<br />
<a href="http://www.elirion.net/aup.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.elirion.net/aup.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-888</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://spamhuntress.com/2005/06/16/a-clue-about-spam/#comment-888</guid>
		<description>"A cleanup fee of $100.00/hour (minimum 4 hours) may be assessed by DynDNS for violation of these terms. "

https://www.dyndns.org/about/legal/aup.html
About 2/3 through section 12.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A cleanup fee of $100.00/hour (minimum 4 hours) may be assessed by DynDNS for violation of these terms. &#8221;</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dyndns.org/about/legal/aup.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.dyndns.org/about/legal/aup.html</a><br />
About 2/3 through section 12.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
