ings amongst the wider customer base but I
feel like we are getting mired down in suggested processes which
will only ever apply to hypothetical other people. On this, I'd
rather consult with the people it is more likely to affect.
The chances of just one method being suitable for everyone are
small, so I imagine there's going to have to be several levels and
an incredibly tedious fallback strategy for a customer who claims to
have lost ability to satisfy any of the other checks.
> (Aside: Has Bitfolk had any instances of customers being
> incapacitated (or dying) and relatives needing to recover access to
> the VPS? E.g., if it's used for domestic email?)
Yes. A customer died, so I took legal advice and came up with a
policy.
In the UK, if there is a will then the matter has to be dealt with
by an executor of the deceased's estate, and I need to see an
original copy of the death certificate.
If there is no will then a photocopy of the death certificate is
acceptable.
=46rom the death certificate I am able to confirm (by phoning the
registrar) that the individual actually has died, there is or isn't
a will, and next of kin is as claimed.
Assuming no will, I can then hand over the deceased's property to
the next of kin. If there is a will I am not 100% sure what happens
but I imagine it requires the executor to tell me if the contents of
the VPS are mentioned or not, and then do what they say.
This is roughly the same process that UK banks follow when an
account holder dies. I didn't really feel like it was worth
documenting that on the web site as it seemed a bit morbid, but
policy exists.
I don't know what the process would be if an overseas customer died
because I don't know the relevant laws, what their death
certificates look like, who I contact, etc. I'm happy enough to wait
until that happens and find out then.
Note that if the deceased's VPS continues to run or if I can boot it
and make it run, then there is no reason why it can't keep running
as long as someone pays for it. I don't really need to care who is
paying for it as long as they do. It's mainly giving access to the
data inside the VPS that is the issue.
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--8QM4kKE+nfbBA4vJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEUEAREDAAYFAk/69HcACgkQIJm2TL8VSQtoMgCg7u/yO4pcB2dv6LJ84YBMWu14
Fd8AmOY8PiArxOjSQyZpZzAYhO9Wj/o=
=BEwB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--8QM4kKE+nfbBA4vJ--
From phil@??? Mon Jul 09 15:51:15 2012
Received: from [2001:ba8:1f1:f2a1::2] (helo=zircon.org.uk)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phil@???>) id 1SoGF1-0005eu-5o
for users@???; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:51:15 +0000
Received: from cpc2-midd5-0-0-cust267.11-1.cable.virginmedia.com
([82.7.225.12] helo=alcor.scm.tees.ac.uk)
by zircon.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phil@???>)
id 1SoGEp-0005CR-9y; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:51:04 +0100
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:50:55 +0100 (BST)
From: Phil Brooke <phil-bitfolk-users@???>
To: users@???
In-Reply-To: <20120709151047.GW11695@???>
Message-ID: <1207091649410.48899.HUTQHJHJ%phil-bitfolk-users@???>
References: <20120707130537.GA11695@???>
<201207081645.39704.andyparkins@???>
<1207091331520.3156.UDXSUCGA%phil-bitfolk-users@???>
<20120709151047.GW11695@???>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
X-Topal-Fcc: bitfolk-users
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Topal-SPF: yes
X-bitfolk.com-Metrics-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
2001:ba8:1f1:f2a1::2 (failed)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
09 Jul 2012 15:51:15 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f2a1::2
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: phil@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run,
due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Proving that you are you
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:51:15 -0000
Hi Andy,
I think "incredibly tedious fallback strategy" is a fair way to put it.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Andy Smith wrote:
> Yes. A customer died, so I took legal advice and came up with a
> policy.
> [...]
Thanks for the detailed answer.
Cheers,
Phil.
From bitfolklist@??? Mon Jul 09 17:16:54 2012
Received: from [2001:ba8:1f1:f137::2] (helo=secure.newtonnet.co.uk)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <bitfolklist@???>) id 1SoHZu-00015u-JU
for users@???; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:16:54 +0000
Received: by secure.newtonnet.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 108)
id B85C5A007F; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:16:53 +0100 (BST)
Received: from secure.newtonnet.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by secure.newtonnet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2F0A007D
for <users@???>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:16:53 +0100 (BST)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 secure.newtonnet.co.uk 7D2F0A007D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=newtonnet.co.uk;
s=2011; t=1341854213; bh=HaRFcsmAtuxz9XOE2FfbggnVLUwJ+JwtVsZ0zlnElF
o=; h=Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:
MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=mp4rAdK/HpT
bzW6iBGie8j8/uphUgeI2axkSo1AduS7a40c2OSbovDwOrK6RN1e66s1KC1Ykllz5oG
tJATUgQf3DKknHSkOGL0dSvOyk1XejOMy9g52o1DI8arR87RDFxngOb8oxIGu9qgERh
A7ZWlzQ7uQm1Uk8uHnJWcY0gjY=
Received: from 81.174.139.73 (SquirrelMail authenticated user mathew)
by secure.newtonnet.co.uk with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:16:53 +0100
Message-ID: <cf66f3c72ac6f92de79ab05de81c0aaa.squirrel@???>
In-Reply-To: <20120709151047.GW11695@???>
References: <20120707130537.GA11695@???>
<201207081645.39704.andyparkins@???>
<1207091331520.3156.UDXSUCGA%phil-bitfolk-users@???>
<20120709151047.GW11695@???>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:16:53 +0100
From: "Mathew Newton" <bitfolklist@???>
To: users@???
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1
