info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
registrar stupidity
211 views
Skip to first unread message
Nathan Wagner
Jun 22, 2014, 3:24:29 AM6/22/14
to
So, I suppose I should have transferred my domain names from network
solutions years ago, but I've been trying to be lazy about it.
And succeeding admirably, I might say. Then the clowns turned on
auto renew, and charged me for three years without any notice. And
no, I don't count any html email as "notice". HTML email is *spam*,
not a business communication. Actually, I am seriously doubting that
email whatsoever is really a business communication. I suspect that
most businesses would be more productive if they banned email entirely.
But that's another story.
So, I get charged over $100 for a three year renewal. And it's after
the "I've just paid my bills for the month" time, so I don't keep any
money in that account that they found, so my bank helpfully charges me
$12.95 to cover the charge. Bah. I make a phone call to their support
number, and had to explain the charge to the Indian lady on the other
end of the phone. She seemed confused, and when I asked for a refund of
the $12.95, she concluded that I wanted the $110 or whatever it was
refunded. Fine. If your business model consists of refunding $110
instead of $12.95, I'm not going to argue. Though apparently I was
calling "web.com", not "networksolutions.com", so I suppose that, like
most of the "web" companies, the notion of "we make money by selling
products or services for more than they cost us to provide" is not
contemplated by their business plan.
I didn't see any reason to interrupt her, IME, once you get phone drones
off script, god only knows what will happen. Besides, her script at
that point involved "give me money", which I don't generally like to
argue with. Anyway, once she was done, I pointed out that what I was
actually looking for was a refund of the $12.95 that their unauthorized
charge had cost me. I would have renewed the domain anyway, so I
figured I'd let it slide as long as they turned off the auto-renew.
"We won't refund a charge for over-drafts". Um, ok, well, I'll be
taking my business elsewhere then, bye.
I can only assume that all registrars suck, but namecheap.com seemed
like they'd just set up the registration and get out of my way, and they
had a "how to transfer from netsol" page. So I go to get the transfer
set up. Oh look, network solutions has set up a "transfer lock" on my
domains. Feh. Is there any way to change it? Not on their crappy web
site. Why the hell can't most websites actually give out information?
So, another call to network solutions. I'm pretty sure I got the same
lady, but she had to transfer me to some other department.
The guy on that end was actually pretty helpful, and he did ask why I
was leaving. I've had companies not ask at all. It's a bad sign if
you're taking your business elsewhere and you don't even get asked why.
It's like they know their business sucks and are just resigned to it
at that point.
The kicker though was: "Can we convince you to stay if we offer
$9.99/year renewal registration?" Seriously? That's about $80 less for
the three years than you just charged me. So you're willing to take
$80 less, but you won't give me $12.95, which is all I wanted in the
first place. "Um, no." My grandma told me to never take a counteroffer
in response to another offer. Good advice. Sorry, network solutions,
or web.com, or whoever you are, you had your chance to save the account
when I voiced my desire for the $12.95 your charge cost me, once I've
had to call you twice and say I was leaving, it's too late. I don't
want a relationship where I have to threaten you. They seem to have
thought the conversation was
Me: I want to pay less, so I'm leaving unless you lower my bill.
Them: We'd be happy to lower your bill to keep you.
Me: Awesome, my crappy passive-aggressive plan worked.
It wasn't. The conversation was:
Me: Your policy just cost me $12.95, I'd like that refunded and your
account policy changed on my account.
Them: We won't refund the $12.95.
Me: Ok. Please set up whatever needs to be done for me to take my
business elsewhere.
Them: <confused>
I don't like threatening people. "Refund $12.95 or I'll take my
business elsewhere" wasn't intended to be a threat, it was intended
to be a statement of future consequences so they could make a fully
informed decision. It certainly wasn't an invitation to negotiate.
So, after nearly 20 years, I guess I get to see what these "other
registrars" are like, and be done with "the devil I know".
--
nw
solutions years ago, but I've been trying to be lazy about it.
And succeeding admirably, I might say. Then the clowns turned on
auto renew, and charged me for three years without any notice. And
no, I don't count any html email as "notice". HTML email is *spam*,
not a business communication. Actually, I am seriously doubting that
email whatsoever is really a business communication. I suspect that
most businesses would be more productive if they banned email entirely.
But that's another story.
So, I get charged over $100 for a three year renewal. And it's after
the "I've just paid my bills for the month" time, so I don't keep any
money in that account that they found, so my bank helpfully charges me
$12.95 to cover the charge. Bah. I make a phone call to their support
number, and had to explain the charge to the Indian lady on the other
end of the phone. She seemed confused, and when I asked for a refund of
the $12.95, she concluded that I wanted the $110 or whatever it was
refunded. Fine. If your business model consists of refunding $110
instead of $12.95, I'm not going to argue. Though apparently I was
calling "web.com", not "networksolutions.com", so I suppose that, like
most of the "web" companies, the notion of "we make money by selling
products or services for more than they cost us to provide" is not
contemplated by their business plan.
I didn't see any reason to interrupt her, IME, once you get phone drones
off script, god only knows what will happen. Besides, her script at
that point involved "give me money", which I don't generally like to
argue with. Anyway, once she was done, I pointed out that what I was
actually looking for was a refund of the $12.95 that their unauthorized
charge had cost me. I would have renewed the domain anyway, so I
figured I'd let it slide as long as they turned off the auto-renew.
"We won't refund a charge for over-drafts". Um, ok, well, I'll be
taking my business elsewhere then, bye.
I can only assume that all registrars suck, but namecheap.com seemed
like they'd just set up the registration and get out of my way, and they
had a "how to transfer from netsol" page. So I go to get the transfer
set up. Oh look, network solutions has set up a "transfer lock" on my
domains. Feh. Is there any way to change it? Not on their crappy web
site. Why the hell can't most websites actually give out information?
So, another call to network solutions. I'm pretty sure I got the same
lady, but she had to transfer me to some other department.
The guy on that end was actually pretty helpful, and he did ask why I
was leaving. I've had companies not ask at all. It's a bad sign if
you're taking your business elsewhere and you don't even get asked why.
It's like they know their business sucks and are just resigned to it
at that point.
The kicker though was: "Can we convince you to stay if we offer
$9.99/year renewal registration?" Seriously? That's about $80 less for
the three years than you just charged me. So you're willing to take
$80 less, but you won't give me $12.95, which is all I wanted in the
first place. "Um, no." My grandma told me to never take a counteroffer
in response to another offer. Good advice. Sorry, network solutions,
or web.com, or whoever you are, you had your chance to save the account
when I voiced my desire for the $12.95 your charge cost me, once I've
had to call you twice and say I was leaving, it's too late. I don't
want a relationship where I have to threaten you. They seem to have
thought the conversation was
Me: I want to pay less, so I'm leaving unless you lower my bill.
Them: We'd be happy to lower your bill to keep you.
Me: Awesome, my crappy passive-aggressive plan worked.
It wasn't. The conversation was:
Me: Your policy just cost me $12.95, I'd like that refunded and your
account policy changed on my account.
Them: We won't refund the $12.95.
Me: Ok. Please set up whatever needs to be done for me to take my
business elsewhere.
Them: <confused>
I don't like threatening people. "Refund $12.95 or I'll take my
business elsewhere" wasn't intended to be a threat, it was intended
to be a statement of future consequences so they could make a fully
informed decision. It certainly wasn't an invitation to negotiate.
So, after nearly 20 years, I guess I get to see what these "other
registrars" are like, and be done with "the devil I know".
--
nw
David Scheidt
Jun 22, 2014, 11:01:16 AM6/22/14
to
Nathan Wagner <n...@hydaspes.if.org> wrote:
:So, I get charged over $100 for a three year renewal. And it's after
Also, why do they bank account details (or a debit card number), and
not a credit card? With a credit card, when something like that
happens, it's the bank's money, not yours.
--
It makes me feel good knowing that with extensive training, weight
loss and a large capital expenditure, I can fly further than a
flightless chicken. -- Jay Beattie.
:So, I get charged over $100 for a three year renewal. And it's after
:the "I've just paid my bills for the month" time, so I don't keep any
:money in that account that they found, so my bank helpfully charges me
:$12.95 to cover the charge. Bah. I make a phone call to their support
Assuming you're in the US, you opted into being charged for that.
:money in that account that they found, so my bank helpfully charges me
:$12.95 to cover the charge. Bah. I make a phone call to their support
Also, why do they bank account details (or a debit card number), and
not a credit card? With a credit card, when something like that
happens, it's the bank's money, not yours.
--
It makes me feel good knowing that with extensive training, weight
loss and a large capital expenditure, I can fly further than a
flightless chicken. -- Jay Beattie.
BB
Jun 22, 2014, 11:12:17 AM6/22/14
to
On 2014-06-22 07:24:29 +0000, Nathan Wagner said:
> HTML email is *spam*
Aside from the next logical asssumption that ALL email is *spam*, do
you actually filter out ALL HTML emails?
For me that would false positive a lot of emails from people using
awful web-clients.
> HTML email is *spam*
Aside from the next logical asssumption that ALL email is *spam*, do
you actually filter out ALL HTML emails?
For me that would false positive a lot of emails from people using
awful web-clients.
Garrett Wollman
Jun 22, 2014, 11:31:52 AM6/22/14
to
In article <2014062301121763649-zojw8kw6r1@gmailcom>,
And awful non-web-clients these days. I have actually complained to a
number of (legitimate[1]) senders of HTML-only email (which I score as
highly spammy) only to be told "but everybody has a browser these
days" as if that were somehow relevant. And I'm not usually going to
be interested enough to (1) extract said Web page from my spambox, (2)
save it somewhere my browser can read, (3) switch to my browser window
and tell it to open the file where the Web-page body-part was written,
(4) actually read the damn thing, and (5) delete it afterwards --
never mind replying. So usually I just display it as text and vgrep
for any meaningful content; finding none, I just hit "d".[2]
And don't get me started on the broken MIME structures that Mail.app
has been creating for the last decade, which Apple has shown no
interest whatsoever in fixing.
-GAWollman
[1] "Legitimate" as in "the sender was actually trying to communicate
with me and I actually cared what the message said". "Lazy" might be
another word for it, except that on a number of occasions it has
apparently been their mailing-list software that has stripped the
readable body-part leaving only unintelligible markup. Like the
all-mit mailing-list, which is mostly spam but occasionally has
important announcements that I as an employee am expected to read.
[2] If these things weren't so spammy, I could use our webmail
interface, but that's far beyond my level of care and/or
tolerance. Sometimes Emacs can render the crap in w3-mode but it's
often completely unreadable that way, too. Whatever happened to the
goofy "HTML" messages that consisted of fifty lines of header crap, a
<pre> containing the text output by the mainframe application that
actually generated the only actual content in the message, and then
fifty lines of trailer crap?
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
number of (legitimate[1]) senders of HTML-only email (which I score as
highly spammy) only to be told "but everybody has a browser these
days" as if that were somehow relevant. And I'm not usually going to
be interested enough to (1) extract said Web page from my spambox, (2)
save it somewhere my browser can read, (3) switch to my browser window
and tell it to open the file where the Web-page body-part was written,
(4) actually read the damn thing, and (5) delete it afterwards --
never mind replying. So usually I just display it as text and vgrep
for any meaningful content; finding none, I just hit "d".[2]
And don't get me started on the broken MIME structures that Mail.app
has been creating for the last decade, which Apple has shown no
interest whatsoever in fixing.
-GAWollman
[1] "Legitimate" as in "the sender was actually trying to communicate
with me and I actually cared what the message said". "Lazy" might be
another word for it, except that on a number of occasions it has
apparently been their mailing-list software that has stripped the
readable body-part leaving only unintelligible markup. Like the
all-mit mailing-list, which is mostly spam but occasionally has
important announcements that I as an employee am expected to read.
[2] If these things weren't so spammy, I could use our webmail
interface, but that's far beyond my level of care and/or
tolerance. Sometimes Emacs can render the crap in w3-mode but it's
often completely unreadable that way, too. Whatever happened to the
goofy "HTML" messages that consisted of fifty lines of header crap, a
<pre> containing the text output by the mainframe application that
actually generated the only actual content in the message, and then
fifty lines of trailer crap?
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Taki Kogoma
Jun 22, 2014, 11:32:58 AM6/22/14
to
On 2014-06-22, BB <zojw8...@gmail.com>
allegedly proclaimed to alt.sysadmin.recovery:
I'm sorry. The above suggests that you may not consider this to be a
Good Thing...
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
allegedly proclaimed to alt.sysadmin.recovery:
Good Thing...
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
BB
Jun 22, 2014, 11:51:15 AM6/22/14
to
On 2014-06-22 15:32:58 +0000, Taki Kogoma said:
> I'm sorry. The above suggests that you may not consider this to be a
> Good Thing...
'tis the season for false positives.
> I'm sorry. The above suggests that you may not consider this to be a
> Good Thing...
Joe Zeff
Jun 22, 2014, 3:38:21 PM6/22/14
to
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:31:52 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> And awful non-web-clients these days. I have actually complained to a
> number of (legitimate[1]) senders of HTML-only email (which I score as
> highly spammy) only to be told "but everybody has a browser these days"
> as if that were somehow relevant.
I belong to several tech support mailing lists. One of them forbids
> And awful non-web-clients these days. I have actually complained to a
> number of (legitimate[1]) senders of HTML-only email (which I score as
> highly spammy) only to be told "but everybody has a browser these days"
> as if that were somehow relevant.
html. In fact, it removes all html, leaving only a note that an html
part has been scrubbed. Every few days I get a posting to the list
containing nothing but that note. I've never even once asked that the
sender resend, for two reasons. First, if they can't control their
client well enough to have it send plain text only to that list I
probably don't give a rat's ass what they're wanking about and second, I
know that somebody else will ask about it.
[1]Legacy footnote; not supported here.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
I was looking at some BMI charts this last week, and calculate that I
am, at presnt, about 10" too short.
Message has been deleted
Wojciech Derechowski
Jun 22, 2014, 5:00:29 PM6/22/14
to
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:31:52 +0000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> Whatever happened to the
> goofy "HTML" messages that consisted of fifty lines of header crap, a
><pre> containing the text output by the mainframe application that
> actually generated the only actual content in the message, and then
> fifty lines of trailer crap?
These are piling up in my maildir but I'd rather read the core dumps.
> goofy "HTML" messages that consisted of fifty lines of header crap, a
><pre> containing the text output by the mainframe application that
> actually generated the only actual content in the message, and then
> fifty lines of trailer crap?
--
WD
Who is Entscheidungs and what is his problem?
Richard Bos
Jun 23, 2014, 7:11:33 AM6/23/14
to
People who use awful web-clients rarely send anything worth reading.
(See also: web pages that break when you turn JavaShit off.)
(And nota bene: does not apply to people who send HTML mail, but are
wise enough to also supply a text-only part which is equivalent to the
HTML, modulo prettiness.)
Richard
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Garrett Wollman
Jun 23, 2014, 2:32:20 PM6/23/14
to
In article <lo9qq6$jp$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
Bob Clements <fake_a...@k1bc.com> wrote:
Not being one of those, I'm not on their spam list.
>It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one
>text/html.
Yeah, that would at least be normal (and semi-tolerable). But the
crap from Magohany Row (FcnzNffnffva score 9.4 in the most recent
example) consists solely of:
multipart/related
+---text/html
+---image/gif
...which seems to have been excreted by some combination of Outbreak
and Rkpunatr. The image is of course a completely pointless footer.
Compare to the crap generated by Znvy.ncc:
multipart/alternative
+---text/plain
| "Please see the attached PDF"
+---multipart/mixed
+---text/html
+---application/pdf
...where it's always "*What* attached PDF?! Oh, for fsck's sake..."
but at least there is an actual text bit that I can read and it's not
all that difficult to edit the header and change the
multipart/alternative into a multipart/mixed so I can see the
attachment.
I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
broken structure.
-GAWollman
Bob Clements <fake_a...@k1bc.com> wrote:
>On 06/22/2014 11:31, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> Like the
>> all-mit mailing-list, which is mostly spam but occasionally has
>> important announcements that I as an employee am expected to read.
>
>I don't know whether you get alumni mail as well.
>
>> Like the
>> all-mit mailing-list, which is mostly spam but occasionally has
>> important announcements that I as an employee am expected to read.
>
Not being one of those, I'm not on their spam list.
>It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one
>text/html.
Yeah, that would at least be normal (and semi-tolerable). But the
crap from Magohany Row (FcnzNffnffva score 9.4 in the most recent
example) consists solely of:
multipart/related
+---text/html
+---image/gif
...which seems to have been excreted by some combination of Outbreak
and Rkpunatr. The image is of course a completely pointless footer.
Compare to the crap generated by Znvy.ncc:
multipart/alternative
+---text/plain
| "Please see the attached PDF"
+---multipart/mixed
+---text/html
+---application/pdf
...where it's always "*What* attached PDF?! Oh, for fsck's sake..."
but at least there is an actual text bit that I can read and it's not
all that difficult to edit the header and change the
multipart/alternative into a multipart/mixed so I can see the
attachment.
I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
broken structure.
-GAWollman
Erwan David
Jun 23, 2014, 2:49:52 PM6/23/14
to
Bob Clements <fake_a...@k1bc.com> disait le 06/23/14 que :
> On 06/22/2014 11:31, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
> line breaks, even in obviously-meant-to-be columns in the
> sig area.
>
> Fortunately, I have no requirement to read the stuff. I do
> still read one once in a while to see whether it has gotten
> better or worse.
There are also the multipart/alternative mails where the text/plain part
contains only "your reader cannot read html emails"
That's false. My reader can read html emails, however I prefer that it
does not.
--
Les simplifications c'est trop compliqu�
> On 06/22/2014 11:31, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> Like the
>> all-mit mailing-list, which is mostly spam but occasionally has
>> important announcements that I as an employee am expected to read.
>
>> all-mit mailing-list, which is mostly spam but occasionally has
>> important announcements that I as an employee am expected to read.
>
> I don't know whether you get alumni mail as well.
>
>
> It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one
> text/html.
>
> The plain part has minor issues, like, oh, not having any
> text/html.
>
> line breaks, even in obviously-meant-to-be columns in the
> sig area.
>
> Fortunately, I have no requirement to read the stuff. I do
> still read one once in a while to see whether it has gotten
> better or worse.
There are also the multipart/alternative mails where the text/plain part
contains only "your reader cannot read html emails"
That's false. My reader can read html emails, however I prefer that it
does not.
--
Les simplifications c'est trop compliqu�
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Richard Bos
Jun 24, 2014, 7:18:08 AM6/24/14
to
Michel <ab...@rubberchicken.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:11:33 GMT, Richard Bos wrote:
> > (And nota bene: does not apply to people who send HTML mail, but are
> > wise enough to also supply a text-only part which is equivalent to the
> > HTML, modulo prettiness.)
>
> Hah. I've had a (mailinglist) email that had 3 blocks of lorem
> ipsum in the text-only part. The html part was about as useful,
> it turned out.
True. I'm not saying the above-mentioned people aren't rare. But they do
exist; Michael Quinion, for one.
Richard
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:11:33 GMT, Richard Bos wrote:
> > (And nota bene: does not apply to people who send HTML mail, but are
> > wise enough to also supply a text-only part which is equivalent to the
> > HTML, modulo prettiness.)
>
> ipsum in the text-only part. The html part was about as useful,
> it turned out.
True. I'm not saying the above-mentioned people aren't rare. But they do
exist; Michael Quinion, for one.
Richard
Message has been deleted
Alexander Schreiber
Jun 25, 2014, 4:58:07 PM6/25/14
to
Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> In article <lo9qq6$jp$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bob Clements <fake_a...@k1bc.com> wrote:
>>On 06/22/2014 11:31, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
> Compare to the crap generated by Znvy.ncc:
>
> multipart/alternative
> +---text/plain
>| "Please see the attached PDF"
> +---multipart/mixed
> +---text/html
> +---application/pdf
>
> ...where it's always "*What* attached PDF?! Oh, for fsck's sake..."
Oh damn ... when (as part of changing employers) I went through the
> In article <lo9qq6$jp$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bob Clements <fake_a...@k1bc.com> wrote:
>>On 06/22/2014 11:31, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
> Compare to the crap generated by Znvy.ncc:
>
> multipart/alternative
> +---text/plain
>| "Please see the attached PDF"
> +---multipart/mixed
> +---text/html
> +---application/pdf
>
> ...where it's always "*What* attached PDF?! Oh, for fsck's sake..."
fun of relocating to another country. The relocation agent provided
by $FUTURE_EMPLOYER kept sending me apparently blank emails.
After I while I figured out why: He was a member of the cult of Nccyr
and Znvy.ncc kept doing the above. Since I was using a sensible MUA
(zhgg), all I ever saw was the empty looking text part. Digging out
the PDF every time was annoying.
> I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
> broken structure.
at Nccyr?
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] I'm using the term rather loosely here ...
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Garrett Wollman
Jun 25, 2014, 5:28:50 PM6/25/14
to
In article <slrnlqmdu...@frodo.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
probably already managed to reproduce, so it's too late to fix s/h/it.
Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>> I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
>> broken structure.
>
>How about fixing whoever had the bright[0] idea to do things that way
>at Nccyr?
It's been wrong for so long now that I suspect whoever it was has
>> I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
>> broken structure.
>
>How about fixing whoever had the bright[0] idea to do things that way
>at Nccyr?
probably already managed to reproduce, so it's too late to fix s/h/it.
Richard Bos
Jun 25, 2014, 5:31:27 PM6/25/14
to
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <slrnlqmdu...@frodo.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
> >Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> >> I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
> >> broken structure.
> >
> >How about fixing whoever had the bright[0] idea to do things that way
> >at Nccyr?
>
> It's been wrong for so long now that I suspect whoever it was has
> probably already managed to reproduce, so it's too late to fix s/h/it.
Probably already been fixed. It was in the news.
> In article <slrnlqmdu...@frodo.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
> >Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> >> I should seriously write an "unfsck Nccyr Znvy" milter that fixes this
> >> broken structure.
> >
> >How about fixing whoever had the bright[0] idea to do things that way
> >at Nccyr?
>
> It's been wrong for so long now that I suspect whoever it was has
> probably already managed to reproduce, so it's too late to fix s/h/it.
Richard
Alexander Schreiber
Jun 25, 2014, 6:22:53 PM6/25/14
to
Dave Ewart <da...@sungate.co.uk> wrote:
> text/plain are different from those inside text/html - I was hoping this
> was some kind of Special Discount For Users Of Real Email Clients.
Or the online shop[0] that sends the receipt via mail: the text/html
part contains the usual expected data and fluff, but the text/plain
part contained a brief version of the data (bought X things for Y $)
plus the full credit card data set: cardholder name, full card number,
expiry date _and_ CVV.
I was not impressed. Called my bank, told them about this. Their response
was entirely expected: "WTF? We're canceling that card now and will ship
you a new one."[0]
When I informed the online shop of this fuckup, they couldn't reproduce
it. Looking at their mailheaders revealed the cause: Bhgybbx.
A day later, I get an email from the company that was apparently actually
running the shop: cc charge bounced (since I was right quick in nuking
the card). Explained the story to them. Got a very polite mail back asking
me when would be a good time for their techs to phone me.[1]
Discussed it on the phone, they apparently had found the cause and fixed
it (my guess: forgotten debug flag). Offered to re-imburse me for any
extra cost this caused me and were very sorry this happened.
I still couldn't resist to plant a little barb: this went out over email and
it is a business communication. By law, you are required to retain business
relevant comms in .de for a few years, so quite a few places have automatic
email archiving systems in place for that. On the other hand, the PCI DSS
pretty much says you can't keep the CVV around for longer than you absolutely
need to complete the transaction ...[2]
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] Hanging off an old and reasonably reputable printing house in .de
[1] Why does that smell like someone didn't want any more of a written
record about this than was unavoidable?
[2] All of that from memory - I'm neither a lawyer nor do I deal with
PCI DSS.
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:14:29 -0400, Bob Clements <fake_a...@k1bc.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one text/html.
>
> One online vendor used to send such emails where the prices given inside
> wrote:
>
>> It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one text/html.
>
> text/plain are different from those inside text/html - I was hoping this
> was some kind of Special Discount For Users Of Real Email Clients.
Or the online shop[0] that sends the receipt via mail: the text/html
part contains the usual expected data and fluff, but the text/plain
part contained a brief version of the data (bought X things for Y $)
plus the full credit card data set: cardholder name, full card number,
expiry date _and_ CVV.
I was not impressed. Called my bank, told them about this. Their response
was entirely expected: "WTF? We're canceling that card now and will ship
you a new one."[0]
When I informed the online shop of this fuckup, they couldn't reproduce
it. Looking at their mailheaders revealed the cause: Bhgybbx.
A day later, I get an email from the company that was apparently actually
running the shop: cc charge bounced (since I was right quick in nuking
the card). Explained the story to them. Got a very polite mail back asking
me when would be a good time for their techs to phone me.[1]
Discussed it on the phone, they apparently had found the cause and fixed
it (my guess: forgotten debug flag). Offered to re-imburse me for any
extra cost this caused me and were very sorry this happened.
I still couldn't resist to plant a little barb: this went out over email and
it is a business communication. By law, you are required to retain business
relevant comms in .de for a few years, so quite a few places have automatic
email archiving systems in place for that. On the other hand, the PCI DSS
pretty much says you can't keep the CVV around for longer than you absolutely
need to complete the transaction ...[2]
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] Hanging off an old and reasonably reputable printing house in .de
[1] Why does that smell like someone didn't want any more of a written
record about this than was unavoidable?
[2] All of that from memory - I'm neither a lawyer nor do I deal with
PCI DSS.
Shmuel Metz
Jun 25, 2014, 9:41:29 PM6/25/14
to
In <53a730ad$0$25946$862e...@ngroups.net>, on 06/22/2014
Overly generous.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Overly generous.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
TimC
Jun 26, 2014, 10:58:28 AM6/26/14
to
On 2014-06-23, Richard Bos (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
I don't mind firing up the HTML viewer for their postings, because I
need to see the brews anyway before deciding which establishment to
visit on Friday night. Hey, it's Friday night in a mere 16 hours.
--
Thus sprach TimC
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> BB <zojw8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-06-22 07:24:29 +0000, Nathan Wagner said:
>> > HTML email is *spam*
>>
>> Aside from the next logical asssumption that ALL email is *spam*, do
>> you actually filter out ALL HTML emails?
>>
>> For me that would false positive a lot of emails from people using
>> awful web-clients.
>
> Erm... good?
>
> People who use awful web-clients rarely send anything worth reading.
cf. my local beer snobs mailing list.
>> On 2014-06-22 07:24:29 +0000, Nathan Wagner said:
>> > HTML email is *spam*
>>
>> Aside from the next logical asssumption that ALL email is *spam*, do
>> you actually filter out ALL HTML emails?
>>
>> For me that would false positive a lot of emails from people using
>> awful web-clients.
>
> Erm... good?
>
> People who use awful web-clients rarely send anything worth reading.
I don't mind firing up the HTML viewer for their postings, because I
need to see the brews anyway before deciding which establishment to
visit on Friday night. Hey, it's Friday night in a mere 16 hours.
--
Thus sprach TimC
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?
Snorre Alnæs
Nov 14, 2014, 9:09:31 AM11/14/14
to
* (2014-06-23 18:25+0000) Roger Bell_West:
> byte-identical "text/plain" and "text/html" parts.
I've gotten some that aren't really identical, most of the html is stripped. But
it's 7-bit us ascii, filled up with stuff like ø.
I do marvel at how such things come about.
--
If there's anything more important than my ego around,
I want it caught and shot now.
> On 2014-06-23, Bob Clements wrote:
>> It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one
>> text/html.
>
> I've met one mailer (written in CUC of course), which sends
>> It comes with two parts, one allegedly text/plain and one
>> text/html.
>
> byte-identical "text/plain" and "text/html" parts.
I've gotten some that aren't really identical, most of the html is stripped. But
it's 7-bit us ascii, filled up with stuff like ø.
I do marvel at how such things come about.
--
If there's anything more important than my ego around,
I want it caught and shot now.
0 new messages