Jump to content

msealey

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About msealey

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    California
  • Interests
    Liberty, long life and love of light
  1. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    They continue to push their muck my way too - relentlessly. I now have cases open to stop them at two BBBs, two D/As (both in California); and two ICANN cases for lack of compliance; as well as a couple of 'inquiries' in to Uniregistry (most of their spamvertised sites are .links). And all the filtering I can throw at them. Each time they - effectively - impersonate a (major) company… CVS, the health providers etc, I forward to those co.s' abuse depts too. Am also reporting here every one I get. They definitely stop over the w/e's and most evenings: suggests humans busily making others' lives a little worse each day? Their site and AUP (!)/TOS (!) suggests that they're a really reasonable and responsible (not to say responsive) company. Ha! And just saw a Twitter feed where a rep of theirs appeared all sympathetic and said to forward to their 'Abuse Department' New low :-(
  2. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    It looks as though namecheap's upstream is blacklotus, whose customers had been spamming me for a solid month before they suddenly stopped. Now namecheap has taken over.
  3. For a few weeks in September, 90% of the spam I was receiving came to promote spamvertised sites hosted by blacklotus. All reported. It suddenly stopped. A few days later I started to receive floods of similar-looking material for spamvertised sites hosted by namecheap/namecheaphosting. Also all reported. Continued. Am I right in concluding (from the below) that namecheap's upstream provider is blacklotus, please? If so, what are the implications (and what can I do about it)? nslookup namecheap.com Name: namecheap.com Address: 199.59.161.100 then this whois query returns: Net Range 199.59.160.0 - 199.59.167.255 CIDR 199.59.160.0/21 Name BLACK-LOTUS-COMMUNICATIONS Thanks!
  4. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    For some reason they stopped completely all day on 2014-10-22. But are back with a vengeance today :-(
  5. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    Thanks, David. Per knightshade's suggestion, am following up with uniregistry too… I appreciate what you say about SC's mission being a more direct one. At the same time SC is revealing a whole variety of actual spammers, taking advantage of namecheap.
  6. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    knightshade, Thanks so much; have replied to your PMs :-) Appreciated…
  7. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    knightshade, Thanks for your help: when you say that namecheap doesn't fit in that category, do you mean that in your experience, they're reputable? I'm having to report dozens of emails from namecheap (via SC) daily. Am utterly sick of them. Have tried blocking all last octets of IP addresses from which their trash seems to originate. But they immediately find another one. I'd dearly like to see them go under for good - and fast…
  8. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    knightshade, Thanks. But how do you advise them of the (actually your) address that they're abusing without telling them what it is? (If you see what I mean.) Of course they do already have the address they're spamming because… they're spamming you/me. If I thought name cheap were reputable, I'd call them and tell them to stop it. But I just don't trust them. have today filed BBB and District Attorney complaints.
  9. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    Thanks, knightshade; I'm reluctant to supply any of these ******'s with an email address which they can use against me. Last week I did get (via SC, thank you!) three acknowledgements from namecheap that they were "looking into it". But the muck keeps on coming from them. namecheap's site looks so convincing: it's tempting to approach them 'person to person' (so to speak) and open a dialog. But I don't want to waste my time :-(
  10. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    David, > I'm a customer of NameCheap and found them to be both responsive and responsible. I'll need to see some very convincing evidence to think otherwise. Regrettably, see http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=showhistory;slice=issueid;val=557107224 That's about 10% of it :-( Sorry…
  11. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    Thank you Lou and Farelf; I'll use that info which you've kindly provided. Anyone else suffering from an onslaught from them?
  12. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    Lou, Thanks for editing my post… of course :-) In Safari 7 on 10.9.5 and the usual DNS etc tools on a LAN attempts to return info or display a page all just time out.
  13. msealey

    namecheaphosting

    Although I've had promises to take action from namecheaphosting.com, their filth continues to pour in. http://www.namecheaphosting.com doesn't seem to resolve, though. Anyone know who they are and how they can be stopped, please? TIA!
  14. msealey

    What is the point of spam?

    So it's all worth it for the many tens or hundreds of thousands of spammers each to send out on the off chance that an uptake by 1% of 1% will more than cover their costs? I respect what you say. I am sure you know more about it than I do. And I appreciate that the internet, as you say, presents spammers with huge economies of scale. But I still think it's a very long shot for most spammers - if for no other reason than that the unlikelihood of even 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% getting to the exact person who wants to refinance their house (cheap mortgages spam) at that moment, decides that at unknown spammer without record or reputation is a better option than a trusted mortgage company, and successfully sees it through and (re)finances as a result of the 'offer' they receive from an unknown source unsolicited and one of several dozen they receive that day. IOW I have to think there's something else going on!
  15. msealey

    What is the point of spam?

    Steve, Thanks for the resources. Their arguments still seem pretty weak - that minute amounts of money can be made from minute %ages of people who do part with they money in the hopes of seeing something in return. That I could understand if it were a case of handing out 1,000 leaflets (or the electronic equivalent) to 100 people. Some of it (1% of 1%) will stick. But as your senderbase pie chart shows (thank you!), the sheer volume of hated messaging which I'd have thought 99.99% of people either simply delete or take action over, or - IMHO rightly ignore on principle - can't possibly have a return for more than a correspondingly small %age of the many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of spammers sending. Yes, they may get rich b/c their operations are so large. But if i thought of myself setting up in the spamming business, I'd never expect to be able to live off it. I can see how TV advertising works, mail shots, even telemarketing. But surely email spam (say 50 a day) is the equivalent of one robo-call/telemarketing attempt every 30 minutes around the clock. OTOH, pragmatically, they wouldn't be doing it if there were indeed no return. I just can't see with billions of messages daily (phishing aside - that makes perfect sense) and the vast majority of users 'wise' to what's going on being worth their while. On a subsidiary note, I do believe something serious has got to be done about it: few things except the degradation of the physical environment and greedy who cause others to hunger and thirst so negatively affect the quality of life of so many as spam. Minor, Yes. But such an irritant. I've been an internet and email user since the early 1980s, BTW.
×