Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18533 > unrolled thread

ThunderMail is coming soon

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  ThunderMail is coming soon James <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-20 19:15 +0000
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-20 20:35 +0100
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-20 21:50 +0200
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 16:13 +0000
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 21:42 +0200
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-20 15:46 -0500
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-21 08:52 +0100
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-21 17:36 -0500
            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-22 05:58 -0400
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-22 07:43 -0500
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-22 23:42 +1000
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-20 21:12 +0100
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-20 15:49 -0500
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-04-21 18:53 +0200
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-22 20:07 +1000
            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-22 07:49 -0500
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 13:58 +0000
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-22 15:32 +0000
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon David <BD@invalid.now> - 2025-05-03 14:50 +0100
                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-03 14:39 -0400
                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:14 +0000
                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:53 +0200
                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:31 +0000
                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-05-04 13:59 +0000
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-22 15:39 +0100
                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 00:27 -0500
                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 11:31 +0100
                    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 06:14 -0500
                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-04-23 12:36 +0100
                        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 06:50 -0500
                      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 15:54 +0000
                        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:00 -0500
                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-24 12:19 +0100
                            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-24 14:33 +0200
                              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-25 12:54 +0100
                                Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-25 18:03 +0200
                                  Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-29 16:48 +0100
                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 15:27 +0000
                          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-24 18:37 +0200
                            Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Trump Lost The Tariff War <Trump@US.Gov> - 2025-04-24 17:30 +0000
                              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-24 21:48 +0200
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-23 09:45 +0200
              Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-04-23 09:45 +0200
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-20 15:47 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon D <J@M> - 2025-04-21 01:27 +0200
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-21 03:45 -0700
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-04-22 21:14 -0500
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-23 00:54 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-04-21 13:00 +0100
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Roberto <dash@dominus.net> - 2025-04-21 19:26 +0200
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Robert <monstoor@spammedia.com> - 2025-04-23 00:15 +0100
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon NZ Rules OK <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-23 00:49 +0100
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-22 18:36 -0700
        Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:07 -0500
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Robert <monstoor@spammedia.com> - 2025-04-25 00:26 +0100
          Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-25 05:44 -0700
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-16 06:26 -0500
    Re: ThunderMail is coming soon "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 02:18 +0800
      Re: ThunderMail is coming soon Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-05-21 10:50 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#19016

On Sat, 3 May 2025 14:39:20 -0400, Paul wrote:

> On Sat, 5/3/2025 9:50 AM, David wrote:
>> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1
>>>>>>> of the service."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to
>>>>>> a firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>>>
>>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>>>
>>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>>>
>>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants. 
>>>> Trying to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a
>>>> problem with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they
>>>> want to provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant
>>>> wants to hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>>
>>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be
>>> forced to give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>>>
>>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
>> 
>> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
>> 
>> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know
>> supposedly trying to help.
>> 
>> 
> Redaction of contact information is a good thing.
> (It's a tradeoff caused by the world we live in.)
> 
> a guy on USENET, had his computer room wiped out by ransomware.
> How was he selected ? He registered a web domain with GoDaddy, showing
> his personal information. he wasn't cloaked.
> 
> One day, an email arrived, with a "bill" attached from GoDaddy.
> except, the email wasn't actually from GoDaddy. It was from a Black Hat.
> The Black Hat scanned GoDaddy and extracted all the email addresses. The
> attachment on the email is actually an executable ransomware. All you
> need to do is double click it, thinking it is a PDF. 

Could that attachment have had a name like:

bill.pdf.exe

And Windows hid the extension, making it look like:

bill.pdf

Windows would still know that the extension was exe even though it looked 
like a pdf. That makes it look like M$ made a bad decision.

> The code included a
> worm,
> so the code could attack all the computers.

[snip]

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The foolish renounce this world and pursue an imaginary world to come."
-- Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian philosopher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19018

On 2025-05-03 21:14, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2025 14:39:20 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 5/3/2025 9:50 AM, David wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>>>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1
>>>>>>>> of the service."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to
>>>>>>> a firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>>>>
>>>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.
>>>>> Trying to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a
>>>>> problem with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they
>>>>> want to provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant
>>>>> wants to hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>>>
>>>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be
>>>> forced to give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
>>>
>>> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
>>>
>>> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know
>>> supposedly trying to help.
>>>
>>>
>> Redaction of contact information is a good thing.
>> (It's a tradeoff caused by the world we live in.)
>>
>> a guy on USENET, had his computer room wiped out by ransomware.
>> How was he selected ? He registered a web domain with GoDaddy, showing
>> his personal information. he wasn't cloaked.
>>
>> One day, an email arrived, with a "bill" attached from GoDaddy.
>> except, the email wasn't actually from GoDaddy. It was from a Black Hat.
>> The Black Hat scanned GoDaddy and extracted all the email addresses. The
>> attachment on the email is actually an executable ransomware. All you
>> need to do is double click it, thinking it is a PDF.
> 
> Could that attachment have had a name like:
> 
> bill.pdf.exe
> 
> And Windows hid the extension, making it look like:
> 
> bill.pdf
> 
> Windows would still know that the extension was exe even though it looked
> like a pdf. That makes it look like M$ made a bad decision.

That's one of the tricks. Another is to name it

bill.pdf                                              .exe

with a lot of spaces hopping to make the extension flow out of the window.


By the way, this trick doesn't work on Linux and TB. Double click 
doesn't run an attachment, because it needs to be flagged as executable.

Also, it is quite simple to configure a mail server to block any email 
that contain executable attachments.


Another trick for some time was to email nice screensavers.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19036

David <BD@invalid.now> wrote:
> On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 22/04/2025 2:53 am, s|b wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 15:49:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Additionally, you will be able to bring your own domain on day 1 of
>>>>>> the service."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't own a domain, I've registered it and pay for mailhosting to a
>>>>> firm in a country that respects GDPR. Why would want to move?
>>>>> 
>>>> "GDPR"?? Thank you, Google and Wikipedia
>>>> 
>>>> "General Data Protection Regulation"
>>>> 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>> 
>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>> 
>> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
>> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
>> 
>> So yes, thanks GDPR.
> 
> DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
> 
> Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know 
> supposedly trying to help.

I'm glad you at least learned something today...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19038

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> David <BD@invalid.now> wrote:
> > On 22/04/2025 14:58, Chris wrote:
[...]
> >> A decent website will a contact option. You should not have to be forced to
> >> give out personal information via a WHOIS lookup.
> >> 
> >> So yes, thanks GDPR.
> > 
> > DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE.
> > 
> > Never click links nor run software from someone you don't know 
> > supposedly trying to help.
> 
> I'm glad you at least learned something today...

  Well, not changing nyms - to evade killfiles - all the time ('EMAK'),
isn't something 'Boater Dave' learned, not today and probably not ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18598

On 2025-04-22 13:49, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!

Can't say that I've noticed any such problem  -  I just use Whois  -  so 
I suspect that this is just another example of someone from the other 
side of the pond having an uninformed opinion against the EU and its 
legislation.  Many countries in the EU, including Britain who was still 
a member at the time, had or were considering their own similar national 
legislation, but it was always obviously one of those matters where a 
continent wide harmonised approach made more sense.

https://whois.domaintools.com/

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18617

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
> 
> Can't say that I've noticed any such problem  -  I just use Whois  - 
> so I suspect that this is just another example of someone from the
> other side of the pond having an uninformed opinion against the EU
> and its legislation.  

I meant domain lookups, not DNS lookups.  When did you last do a WhoIs
lookup on a domain?  You get a privatized domain registration where the
registrar pretends they are the registrant (IANA requires someone be
identified as the registrant), or a registrant that is redacted, because
the registrar follows GDPR rules.

As for WhoIs, yes, that is what I'm talking about: look at a domain's
registration which is required by IANA to provide contact information on
/some/ registrant.

To get around IANA's requirement, some registrars provided a private
registration service at an extra fee.  The registrant in the domain
registration was the registrar instead of the actual registrant.  Then
came the GDPR where registrants could request their registrant data to
get redacted, or the registrar did it en masse.  So, when you lookup the
domain registration, you got shit for registrant info.

The primary impetus for hiding the registrant info was because there
were spammers that would lookup up domain registrations to see which
ones were about to expire, and offer their registration service.
Registrants didn't want to get the spam, so they wanted to hide their
identification in the domain registration records.  With privatized
registration, the registrar was identified as the registrant.  The
registrar handled the "renew your domain with us" spam.  The whole point
of privatized registration was to hide the real registrant.  

The solution was extremely simple: use an e-mail address specifying and
only for domain registration with your registrar.  Create an e-mail
account for just domain registration notifications, and add a filter
that accepted e-mails only from your registrar, so all other messages
get immediately discard on delivery.  You could identify yourself as the
registrant, and even give postal addresses (since spammers don't pay for
a stamp to send spam).

Then later came the GDPR where registrants could hide without having to
pay extra for privatized registration.  The registrant info got redacted
to point at a registrar, or one of their services, like e-mail addresses
that pointed back to the registrar.

https://www.whois.com/whois/domaintools.com

is registered with TuCows, and says the registrant is:

https://tieredaccess.com/contact/eceac3b1-4ae2-4ab0-a2d8-f7647c12c66b

but:

https://www.whois.com/whois/tieredaccess.com

shows that domain is TuCows, the registrar.  The domaintools.com
registration hides the actual registrant, and the purported registrant
is the registrar whose domain lookup is not redacted for registrant
info.

Sorry to those who suggest a web site should provide contact
information.  Yeah, like that really works ... NOT!  Rare few sites
provide contact information.  Instead they may provide a web form to
contact them.  Or worse is they push some AI chat bot at you that is of
no help at all, and worthless to report problems to the website.

Oh yes, send an e-mail to webmaster@<domain> or postmaster@<domain>.
Most often those are bit buckets to automatically discard those
messages.  Those that suggest this method haven't tried it.  The success
rate is about the same as firing a .22 rifle while blindfolded at a
pinata from a quarter mile away.

It's not just small fry that get to hide it's their web site.  Huge
corporations do it, too.  So, why continue with bogus domain
registration records that do not identify the registrant?  None of the
other remaining information is of any value.  All you're left with
nowadays is to see when a domain got registered, when last updated, and
when it expires.  The whole point of WhoIS was neutered by privatized
domain registrations, and then by the GDPR.  So, just get rid of all
domain lookups, and leave everyone in the dark who is operating a web
site since that is effectively what WhoIs has become: nearly worthless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18623

On 2025-04-23 06:27, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> GDPR ruined DNS lookups by requiring redaction of registrants.  Trying
>>> to get contact info on a domain registrant to alert them to a problem
>>> with their web site becomes much more difficult.  Yeah, they want to
>>> provide a publicly accessible web site, but the registrant wants to
>>> hide.  Thanks GDPR ... not!
>>
>> Can't say that I've noticed any such problem  -  I just use Whois  -
>> so I suspect that this is just another example of someone from the
>> other side of the pond having an uninformed opinion against the EU
>> and its legislation.
> 
> I meant domain lookups, not DNS lookups.  When did you last do a WhoIs
> lookup on a domain?

Many times since GDPR was adopted by the EU.  As for the gist of your 
argument, which I've snipped as it was unnecessarily long-winded, as far 
as I could tell it from skimming through it ...

If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or 
whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the 
website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it is 
sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; if the problem behaviour 
persists, they can, and in my experience will, threaten to refuse to 
handle the domain.  For example, there was a domain that held both 
incorrect information and personally identifying information about my 
family's descent from a younger son of a Chief of Clan Macfarlane, so I 
wrote to the domain's contact address given on the site, both correcting 
the wrong information and demanding the removal of personally 
identifying information of living people and their parents.  Initially, 
the owner refused the latter, worse still, he bolshed about it, claiming 
that I was curtailing his freedoms, blah, blah.  So I complained to the 
Registrant about his behaviour, and the personally identifying 
information was duly removed.

As for wishing to complain about the actual functionality of a website, 
any reputable business will be at least somewhat interested if their 
website is causing their customers or users difficulties, after all it's 
the modern equivalent of their retail premises or shop window.  If their 
site is causing sufficient problems to sufficient numbers of people, 
they'd be foolish to ignore the problem, as it will likely adversely 
affect their business bottom line.  For example, I have written before 
here or hereabouts about why I ditched Three in the UK as my mobile 
supplier, partly because their site and management of personal data 
behind it were so appallingly programmed.

More generally, often you don't need to know the actual site ownership 
details to work out what you need to know about a it.  For example, 
during the covid pandemic, a great many fake and pseudo science sites 
sprung up concerning it, all you needed to know in that situation was 
that the sites having questionable information were created at or around 
the outbreak, so weren't likely to be reliable purveyors of reliable 
medical information from a reliable source.  Similarly with other forms 
of scientific denialism.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18624

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or
> whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the
> website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it
> is sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; ...

Presumably you meant the registrar.  The problem is the domain lookup
nowadays often doesn't reveal contact info on the registrant, there is
no contact info at the web site (assuming it is up and responsive, and
you're not trying to report it is down), and the postmaster and
webmaster e-mail addresses are just bit buckets, or not defined so I get
back an NDR (Non-Delivery Report).  

I'm not trying to report an abusive web site.  I'm trying to contact its
registrant to report a problem with the web site, like it is not
responsive, it may be hacked (e.g., a popup appears mentioning infection
which is ransomware), or otherwise trying to help the registrant with
their web site.  Too many owners don't monitor their sites nor use tools
to notify them when it is down.  They don't know there is a problem
until someone tells them.  That is when contacting them phone or e-mail
can notify them.

Think of walking behind someone carrying a grocery bag, and a can falls
out of a hole in the bag.  You get their attention they are losing their
groceries.  You are helping them, not calling 911 to have them arrested
for littering.

> As for wishing to complain about the actual functionality of a website, 
> any reputable business will be at least somewhat interested if their 
> website is causing their customers or users difficulties, after all it's 
> the modern equivalent of their retail premises or shop window.  If their 
> site is causing sufficient problems to sufficient numbers of people, 
> they'd be foolish to ignore the problem, as it will likely adversely 
> affect their business bottom line.  

How would they know?  Yes, there are monitoring services they could
enlist, but not everyone uses them.  Some web sites are e-tailers, but
many are hobbyists.  It's not they are ignoring a problem.  It's they
don't there is a problem.

> More generally, often you don't need to know the actual site ownership 
> details to work out what you need to know about a it.  

Some web sites won't provide phone numbers, postal addresses, or e-mail
addresses, but supply a web form to contact them.  However, if the web
site is down, obviously you cannot use their web form.  You also cannot
get any contact info published at the web site, because it is down.  So,
what are you left with?  Postmaster and webmaster e-mail address that
are often worthless, or to lookup the domain registrant to see if you
can contact them that way.

Someone recently noted they could not connect to a web site, because
there was some alert in their web browser the site cert was invalid.  I
did the domain lookup, and saw the site cert expired the same day the
user noted they could no longer connect to the site.  Someone somehow
notified the site admin their cert had expired, and they bought another
lease to renew their cert the next day.  The user couldn't load the web
page to get contact info, if even published, at the web site.  Their
domain lookup had bogus registrant info.  I would expect the registrar
would have informed them about a soon-expiring site cert, but maybe the
site owner didn't get it, or didn't see it, or the site owner changed
their e-mail address, so the registrar's notifications were never
received.  You could wait until doomsday hoping the site admin got a new
site cert figuring somehow they'd find out about it.  Or you could be
the someone that somehow told them their site cert had expired.

Digging around a web site looking for contact info is fruitless if the
site is down.  You could try HTTP if HTTPS failed, but not all HTTPS
sites have HTTP pages.  You could send off e-mails to postmaster or
webmaster, but that assumes the site owner reads those instead of
discarding them, or that postmaster@<domain> is where the site's owner
gets e-mails.  

Never had someone tell you your car lights were still on as you were
walking away?  Or you dropped your keys?

With the GDPR, maybe one day you won't even be able to lookup a domain's
registration period, because, gee, that can be construed as private
between registrant and their registrar.  I don't visit the Dark Web, and
the White Web shouldn't behave like the Dark Web.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18625

On 2025-04-23 12:14, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or
>> whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the
>> website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it
>> is sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; ...
> 
> Presumably you meant the registrar.

Yes, my mistake.

> I'm not trying to report an abusive web site.  I'm trying to contact its
> registrant to report a problem with the web site, like it is not
> responsive, it may be hacked (e.g., a popup appears mentioning infection
> which is ransomware), or otherwise trying to help the registrant with
> their web site.  Too many owners don't monitor their sites nor use tools
> to notify them when it is down.  They don't know there is a problem
> until someone tells them.  That is when contacting them phone or e-mail
> can notify them.

A worthwhile website will have contact information you can use for this, 
if they don't, their problem.

>> As for wishing to complain about the actual functionality of a website,
>> any reputable business will be at least somewhat interested if their
>> website is causing their customers or users difficulties, after all it's
>> the modern equivalent of their retail premises or shop window.  If their
>> site is causing sufficient problems to sufficient numbers of people,
>> they'd be foolish to ignore the problem, as it will likely adversely
>> affect their business bottom line.
> 
> How would they know?

Again, a worthwhile website will have contact information you can use 
for this, if they don't, again their problem.

>> More generally, often you don't need to know the actual site ownership
>> details to work out what you need to know about a it.
> 
> Some web sites won't provide phone numbers, postal addresses, or e-mail
> addresses, but supply a web form to contact them.  However, if the web
> site is down, obviously you cannot use their web form.  You also cannot
> get any contact info published at the web site, because it is down.  So,
> what are you left with?  Postmaster and webmaster e-mail address that
> are often worthless, or to lookup the domain registrant to see if you
> can contact them that way.

Most people browsing wouldn't bother to notify a site owner if their 
site was so completely down that no contact details could even be 
loaded, but if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so, they could 
send the site a message via the registrar, asking them to pass it on.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18626

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> A worthwhile website will have contact information you can use for this, 
> if they don't, their problem.

A worthwhile site provides contact information.  
The web site is down, unresponsive, or unreachable.
Just how are you going to get that contact information?

> Most people browsing wouldn't bother to notify a site owner if their 
> site was so completely down that no contact details could even be 
> loaded, but if someone is sufficiently motivated to do so, they could 
> send the site a message via the registrar, asking them to pass it on.

I could try that (ask the registrar to contact the registrant).  Too
often a service ignores requests not from their customers.  Registrars
dole out domain leases.  Web admin is not their business, so I'd be
asking a disinterested party.  Never know, though.  It could work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18628

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> If you need to complain about a domain's behaviour, spamming or
>> whatever, if you don't get any joy from the contacts given out by the
>> website itself or the generally accepted default contacts, usually it
>> is sufficient to complain next to the Registrant; ...
> 
> Presumably you meant the registrar.  The problem is the domain lookup
> nowadays often doesn't reveal contact info on the registrant, there is
> no contact info at the web site (assuming it is up and responsive, and
> you're not trying to report it is down), and the postmaster and
> webmaster e-mail addresses are just bit buckets, or not defined so I get
> back an NDR (Non-Delivery Report).  
> 
> I'm not trying to report an abusive web site.  I'm trying to contact its
> registrant to report a problem with the web site, like it is not
> responsive, it may be hacked (e.g., a popup appears mentioning infection
> which is ransomware), or otherwise trying to help the registrant with
> their web site.  Too many owners don't monitor their sites nor use tools
> to notify them when it is down.  They don't know there is a problem
> until someone tells them.  That is when contacting them phone or e-mail
> can notify them.

That's their choice. You don't have a right to be able to contact them. 

If they're a business and don't have appropriate "contact us" info, they'll
soon cease being a business. If they're a hobbyist then it's still their
choice and a they probably don't care to get feedback. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18633

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's their choice. You don't have a right to be able to contact them. 

Actually, and for registrars under the GDPR's thumb, the registrars
*must* redact the registration info.  It is NOT their customer's choice.

https://blog.dnsimple.com/2019/04/gdpr-and-whois-privacy/
"ICANN, domain registries, and domain registrars reacted to GDPR by
introducing a new policy requiring redaction of personal information,
thus changing the landscape of domain registrations."

https://drs.whoisxmlapi.com/blog/retrieve-domain-data-after-redaction

Yeah, many respondents claim "it's their choice".  Nope.

https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/concealed-registration-data-under-the-gdpr-complicates-udrp-complaints.html

No wonder look-alike domains (using UTF8 characters instead of ASCII)
don't get killed right away.  The scammers get to continue with their
look-alike domain until someone decides to take court action (in an
actionable region governing the registrar).  Class action suits don't
happen overnight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18638

In article <13esvde35xjuj.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, V@nguard.LH says...
>No wonder look-alike domains (using UTF8 characters instead of ASCII)
>don't get killed right away.  
>

How does that work?

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18639

Philip,

>> No wonder look-alike domains (using UTF8 characters instead of
>> ASCII) don't get killed right away.
>
> How does that work?

Look-alike domains using UTF8 characters ?

Its (too) simple.  There are a lot of UTF8 characters that, to us humans, 
look almost, if not completely the same as standard ASCII characters.

Pretty-much the same as "o" and "ö" in the normal ASCII range (the last one 
has two dots above it), but worse.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18656

In article <vudb2r$1j1ta$1@dont-email.me>, address@is.invalid says...
>
>Philip,
>
>>> No wonder look-alike domains (using UTF8 characters instead of
>>> ASCII) don't get killed right away.
>>
>> How does that work?
>
>Look-alike domains using UTF8 characters ?
>
>Its (too) simple.  There are a lot of UTF8 characters that, to us humans, 
>look almost, if not completely the same as standard ASCII characters.
>
>Pretty-much the same as "o" and "ö" in the normal ASCII range (the last one 
>has two dots above it), but worse.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser

Helpful - thanks!

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18660

Philip,

> Helpful - thanks!

You're wecome. :-)

If you put the below in an .HTML file and open it you can see what the 
problem is - and those are just a quick grab.

I've HTML-ed the chars for easy transport/viewing.  You can also open 
'write' (the text editor) press-and-hold ALT and input one of the numbers 
numbers using the numeric keypad (on the right), afterwards releasing the 
ALT key.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>A small example</title>
</head>
<body>

<p> e &#8494; &#1107;</p>
<p> K &#8490;</p>
<p> s &#1109;</p>

</body>
</html>
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18806

In article <vugbor$akfn$1@dont-email.me>, address@is.invalid says...
><html>
><head>
><meta charset="UTF-8">
><title>A small example</title>
></head>
><body>
>
><p> e &#8494; &#1107;</p>
><p> K &#8490;</p>
><p> s &#1109;</p>
>
></body>
></html>
>
>

Excllent demo - thanks!

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18641

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> That's their choice. You don't have a right to be able to contact them. 
> 
> Actually, and for registrars under the GDPR's thumb, the registrars
> *must* redact the registration info.  It is NOT their customer's choice.

Well done for removing context. 

I was talking about not having contact information on their website.
Nothing to do with registrars. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18642

Vanguard,

> Actually, and for registrars under the GDPR's thumb, the registrars
> *must* redact the registration info.  It is NOT their customer's choice.

You *still* have no clue what you are talking about.

... Or you do, but that would make things even worse.  :-|

[Quote from my earlier posted link]
In responses to domain name queries, Registrar and Registry Operator MUST 
treat the following Registrant fields as "redacted"
[quote]

*DIRECTLY FOLLOWED BY*

[Quote from my earlier posted link]
unless the Registered Name Holder has provided Consent to publish the 
Registered Name Holder's data:
[quote]

So no, its still the customers choice, and you're talking crap - again.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18643

On 24/04/2025 17:37, R.Wieser wrote:
> You *still* have no clue what you are talking about.
>
>

For god's sake leave him alone. He is not a resident of Europe and so 
all he can do is to make up things as he goes along and hopefully 
something will hit the mark.

None of you have any clues as to what the topic was about in the subject 
matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web