*SPAM* a day is all they need.  And you have a bad i.p. afterwards ;)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Petersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Domain Lock Downside


> The ones hitting us are going for the full package.
> A good tip-off is that they'll almost always try for the max dollar
amount.
> A good way to keep an eye on it is to at least cue and verify the
> transactions that go for the max amount possible.
>
> The thing that I don't get is, don't these guys realize that we're just
> going to down the server as soon as we
> find out? I mean, even if the site goes up, what's it going to be, 3 or 4
> days max that it would be online?
> I don't know. Maybe it's just the thrill of *getting* it.
> -Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "quicknet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Domain Lock Downside
>
>
> > What i want t to know is what in the world are they buying these domains
> > for?.
> > What company names should we be watching for or even content of the
> sites?.
> > Is it just domains names or are the trying to purchase websites with
> them?.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'Mark Petersen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 6:13 PM
> > Subject: RE: Domain Lock Downside
> >
> >
> > > Yeah so much for all these automated systems, when it all comes down
to
> > > an eyeball..  :)
> > >
> > > We too have seen a 700% increase in business, and all of it fraudulent
> > > sourcing from India..  Same crew, using the same 'org name'. One
> > > actually had the audacity to email us about 2 hours after submitting
> > > order to ask us to 'please process the order' so they could upload the
> > > site, etc.  A $1000 USD transaction was definitely out of the
ordinary..
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Funny...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Petersen
> > > Sent: May 27, 2002 6:24 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Domain Lock Downside
> > >
> > > Well, I don't know about a market upswing, but we sure have seen a
rash
> > > of
> > > bad / stolen card attempts come in from IP's tracing back to
> > > south east Asia over the past few days. So much so that we've switched
> > > over
> > > to cueing everything and validating by hand for now until things
> > > settle down. What a pain in the rear!
> > > -Mark
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "SpyProductions - Lars Hindsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 12:30 PM
> > > Subject: Domain Lock Downside
> > >
> > >
> > > > Gents,
> > > >
> > > > Locking domains is a PIA because end users can't modify squat
without
> > > > contacting us first.  This is OK with the "dumb and happy's" but we
> > > have
> > > > customers with 1000+ names in their profiles.
> > > >
> > > > It is like what goes up must come down.  If you lock it, you need to
> > > unlock
> > > > it.  Changing DNS is undoable with locked domains, and that is a
sore
> > > spot
> > > > for most of our customers.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose my only option is to enable an option at registration
asking
> > > > customers, "Do you want your domain records locked?"
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, if I'm all wet here tell me.
> > > >
> > > > Also, has anyone noticed a market upswing?  We have seen an increase
> > > of
> > > > domain name registrations recently and I can't help but think it is
> > > this
> > > way
> > > > across the board.  Nothing significant but it is noticeable.  The
> > > .com's
> > > are
> > > > by far the most popular of course but .us has been much more steady
> > > and
> > > > strong than .biz and .info have ever been.  Just thought I'd share.
> > > I'm
> > > > talking March through May numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Lars Hindsley
> > > > SpyProductions.com
> > > > Achieve Web Success
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

Reply via email to