gpg: Signature made Wed Jun 20 10:18:13 2018 UTC
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Good signature from "Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andrew James Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (UKUUG) <andy.smith@ukuug.org>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (BitFolk Ltd.) <andy@bitfolk.com>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Linux User Groups UK) <andy@lug.org.uk>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Cernio Technology Cooperative) <andy.smith@cernio.com>" [unknown]
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your input.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:45:53AM +0100, Chris Smith wrote:
> > On 19 Jun 2018, at 20:38, Andy Smith <andy@???> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 07:50:37PM +0100, Ian wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Actually, I partially disagree with Ian’s assertion; there is also a strong element of security here.
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.
> 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
