20 Jun
2018
20 Jun
'18
10:18 a.m.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your input.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:45:53AM +0100, Chris Smith wrote:
Not really BitFolk's problem though because I have no concerns about
suspending someone's network when I detect malicious activity. If I
don't detect what looks like malicious activity then I mostly only
care that they will pay their bill! :)
I'm not disputing that it might be *nice* for there to be additional
controls on BitFolk's side so that the customer might more easily
find out about aberrant behaviour, but we've been going on for 11+
years with things the way they are and the threat to BitFolk here is
a credit control one.
On 19 Jun
2018, at 20:38, Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 07:50:37PM +0100, Ian wrote:
Actually, I partially disagree with Ian’s assertion; there is also a strong element of
security here. I see this as ultimately a credit control
question and, as such, up to
you rather than anyone else.
You are correct, and that is the basis on which I want to make a
change, but I wanted to consult the customer base first to get a
better understanding of what people's views are. I would prefer to be able set my own soft- and hard
thresholds via
the panel
I'm assuming the behaviour of a hard limit is that data transfer
beyond that point is not possible. What were you wanting as the
behaviour of a soft limit?
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting