ot;'Security-Basics (E-mail)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: (Verisign) Misleading mailing is not a good way to get
customers.
> I'm sorry, I must be missing something. It appears to me that if someone
> took the time to r
]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:28 PM
To: 'Jay D. Dyson'
Cc: 'Security-Basics (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: (Verisign) Misleading mailing is not a good way to get
customers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
No this was snail mail, and yes, register.com does it to
From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:23 AM
To: Steve Sobol
Cc: Chris Santerre; Security-Basics (E-mail)
Subject: Re: (Verisign) Misleading mailing is not a good way to get
customers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002,
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Steve Sobol wrote:
> >> Complaints can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Complaints SHOULD be sent to the US Postal Inspectors. This probably
>> qualifies as mail fraud.
> I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that the mailing in
>question was via e-mail. If
-
From: Jay D. Dyson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:23 PM
To: Steve Sobol
Cc: Chris Santerre; Security-Basics (E-mail)
Subject: Re: (Verisign) Misleading mailing is not a good way to get
customers.
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002
At 04:17 PM 5/29/02 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
>I just received a mailing from Verisign that borderlines on fraud. It is at
>the least, VERY misleading. It states in BOLD letters "Domain Name
>Expiration Notice" and to reply by June 20, 2002. However the domain it
>pertains to doesn't expire unt
practices.
Chisholm Wildermuth
-Original Message-
From: Adam Shephard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:44 PM
To: 'Chris Santerre'; Security-Basics (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (Verisign) Misleading mailing is not a good way to get
customers.
You JUST got this? Wo
:Re: (Verisign) Misleading mailing is not a good way to get
customers.
I received one of these from Verisign a few weeks ago. My initial
confusion turned to anger as I realized what they were up to.
Needless to say, I have and will continue to point people to registrars
*other* than
I received one of these from Verisign a few weeks ago. My initial
confusion turned to anger as I realized what they were up to.
Needless to say, I have and will continue to point people to registrars
*other* than Verisign.
Thanks for the email address. I planned on complaining, but life got th
This seems to be a common tactic amongst domain name registrars; I have
received very similar mailings from a couple of other companies that were
similarly misleading. I'd switch to a registar who doesn't resort to these
kind of marginal tricks, ... but there don't seem to be any. I
want
You JUST got this? Wow. Verisign is being sued over exactly this type or
practice currently. You'd think they'd know better.
Here's the info:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-925899.html
-Original Message-
From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:18 PM
Its not only Verisign that plays dirty when it comes to domain name renewal. I
had domains registered with Register.com and decided to switch to a less
expensive service when my renewals came due. The new registrar needed me to
release my domains with Register.com, however, after three weeks o
12 matches
Mail list logo
