# Getting spammed LSN adverts by FraudRecord?



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

The irony of this post is high!

I just got a mail from [email protected] which is nothing more than a limestone networks advert, it is even signed:

Sincerely,

LSN Marketing

Limestone Networks, Inc.

Simple. Solid. Superior. 

You are receiving this message because you have subscribed to FraudRecord services. To change your email preferences, visit your FraudRecord control panel <http://www.fraudrecord.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;area=notification> . 

Looks like they added a newsletter function since initially signing up opt-ed everyone one in and are allowing 3rd parties to use it to spam FR users, there is also no direct opt-out link.

So apart from the fact I reported it as spam (Sorry @KuJoe they use your IP's to bulk mail on behalf of 3rd parties) this makes me wonder, do LSN own Fraud Record now the old owner 'Harzem' (I think) never responds to anything on forums these days and that is since the LSN advert spam started.

Just seems ironic a service used to catch and prevent spammers is now spamming, and something is fishy about the LSN relationship.


----------



## rds100 (Dec 17, 2014)

I received it too, have no idea why they did this. Do they really expect to generate any sales this way?


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

It would have been a clever move by LSN, buy the network that comes pre-equipped with hosts contact details and permission to spam, get their adverts in front of every admin on WHMCS on a daily basis.


----------



## Steven F (Dec 17, 2014)

The problem is that the service is completely free. It's a nice gesture, but after a while, the workload becomes too much. If Harzem were to charge say $5 a month, I'd still use the service and be quite happy. However, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Steven F said:


> The problem is that the service is completely free. It's a nice gesture, but after a while, the workload becomes too much. If Harzem were to charge say $5 a month, I'd still use the service and be quite happy. However, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't.


There was already a discussion about this and after much debate on how much people were willing to pay, it was decided that FraudRecord would always be free and a paid model would ruin the idea of FraudRecord (although you are welcome to donate to their cause if you see fit, but it's not required).



AnthonySmith said:


> Sorry @KuJoe they use your IP's to bulk mail on behalf of 3rd parties


Thanks for the heads up. Luckily they give you the option to unsubscribe but I don't remember if I opted in for these newsletters when I signed up either.


----------



## drmike (Dec 17, 2014)

Limestone and some shady marketing/advertising.... Haven't they done something questionable prior?


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Weird, the only way to unsubscribe from the newsletters is to also unsubscribe from "announcements and important notifications", that sucks.


----------



## devonblzx (Dec 17, 2014)

Whats the big deal?  One email in the two years I have been a member.  Not a big enough deal to make a discussion about in my opinion.  It is a free service that most hosts here take part in, so if you get one ad email, even weekly, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  Just delete it and move on.


----------



## drmike (Dec 17, 2014)

1. Harzem appears to have gone rather quiet on forums, social, etc. since mid November.

2. Why is Limestone involved?  Looking at site, they aren't a sponsor or anything...

see:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=site:fraudrecord.com+limestone

Fraudrecord has to be selling ads or making side deals now, which is meh...

3. The Whois on fraudrecord remains in Harzem's details.  The hosting remains at CNServers via SecureDragon.

This was brought up on LET a while back and Harzem said:



> If enough people donated, there wouldn't be a need for advertisements in the first place. Current sponsors and the new advertisement barely cover the cost of the server alone. We couldn't even get a redundant two-server setup yet. Also the new advertisement is just a one week trial, it may not be there next week.
> 
> So far, the "bit.ly" link generated a whooping 7 clicks! I don't think you'll see many advertisers fighting each other to get a place. Ad-free, donation-needed days are coming back soon.


source:http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/36573/fraudrecord-advertising


----------



## mikho (Dec 17, 2014)

devonblzx said:


> Whats the big deal? One email in the two years I have been a member. Not a big enough deal to make a discussion about in my opinion. It is a free service that most hosts here take part in, so if you get one ad email, even weekly, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Just delete it and move on.



The big deal is that it was unexpected.


The second part from your quote that you are happy about a weekly ad email, imagine the amount of emails in your inbox if every site you signed up with sent you a weekly email?


Not to mention the amount of time it takes to soft out the bad ones from the good ones.


----------



## devonblzx (Dec 17, 2014)

mikho said:


> The second part from your quote that you are happy about a weekly ad email, imagine the amount of emails in your inbox if every site you signed up with sent you a weekly email?
> 
> 
> Not to mention the amount of time it takes to soft out the bad ones from the good ones.


Considering I use fraudrecord to check all orders and don't pay a dime.  I really don't mind the 15 seconds it takes to view and delete an email.


----------



## drmike (Dec 17, 2014)

Suppose everyone should be inquiring about what the ad rates are...

and... considering donating $ to help finance Fraudrecord so it remains both free and ad free.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

The big deal is that it is a tool to prevent *spam* and fraud that sends *spam* on behalf of *3rd* parties, I would have no issues with getting an *FR* newsletter, I would have no issues *paying for FR*, but I do take exception of it being used as a tool to push *uninvited LSN adverts* to my inbox.

@KuJoe even if you did opt-in this is a 3rd party advert, it would be like me pushing SEO marketing spam via my WHMCS and saying you opted in to the Inception Hosting news letter so tough titties!


----------



## mikho (Dec 17, 2014)

devonblzx said:


> Considering I use fraudrecord to check all orders and don't pay a dime. I really don't mind the 15 seconds it takes to view and delete an email.


Multiply that 15 seconds with the amount of websites you signed up with. adds up to alot of seconds. Perhaps even hours in the end?


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

I'd also like to clarify that the e-mail was not sent out from our IPs. Our reverse proxy only allows port 80 and 443.

I sent Harzem a message so hopefully in the future it will be possible to unsubscribe from newsletters without impacting announcements and important updates.


----------



## drmike (Dec 17, 2014)

and... I recommend folks speak out on the FraudRecord forum about the backend admin ads they have been seeing for LSN as well...

There is an existing thread over there already:

https://www.fraudrecord.com/forums/index.php?topic=99.0


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

my mistake I just assumed SA was correct I see it was mailgun.


----------



## devonblzx (Dec 17, 2014)

mikho said:


> Multiply that 15 seconds with the amount of websites you signed up with. adds up to alot of seconds. Perhaps even hours in the end?


Free services with my business email?  Probably about 30 seconds.  I see your point but I don't even consider this as spam.  You can opt-out in the control panel, you most likely opted in to emails when you signed up, you can clearly see it is an advertisement right away with the subject and the large notice at the top, and it is a free service that businesses use.  Most free services come with ads, no matter where they be.  Even a free service needs money to run.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

If you want to have a voice, sponsor FraudRecord and then your feedback has more weight because you can vote with your wallet. Harzem has given everybody the option to stop these ads, but from what I see only 6 companies took that opportunity to try to stop them.

EDIT: I'm not defending the "newsletter", I'm just saying that threads like these don't help at all and only seem like an attack on FraudRecord and Harzem which is the last thing we want to do for such an amazing service that is being offered for free. If people complain enough and cause him stress over his free service, he's just going to close up shop which none of us want to see.


----------



## devonblzx (Dec 17, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> If you want to have a voice, sponsor FraudRecord and then your feedback has more weight because you can vote with your wallet. Harzem has given everybody the option to stop these ads, but from what I see only 6 companies took that opportunity to try to stop them.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not defending the "newsletter", I'm just saying that threads like these don't help at all and only seem like an attack on FraudRecord and Harzem which is the last thing we want to do for such an amazing service that is being offered for free. If people complain enough and cause him stress over his free service, he's just going to close up shop which none of us want to see.


Good point.  Complaining about small things with a *free* service with no real alternatives is kind of pointless.


----------



## Steven F (Dec 17, 2014)

If anyone would like, I would be open to creating a community version of FraudRecord. Public code base, semi-public database (only for programmers), et cetera. We could have a dispute function that would allow pre-approved members to moderate the disputes (keep details private, so you don't know who you're moderating for) and even roll out a few "premium" features (text/phone call verification, maybe more?).

You could easily pop up a site that does the same thing in just a few hours. I'd be willing to start working on it over the weekend, if there was interest, using Laravel (it'll keep things simple).

The nice thing would be that we as a community can add additional features as we see fit. I've been working on WHMCS plugins the past few weeks (private stuff), and rolling something out in WHMCS would be very simple. We could automate it considerably and pop out a really nice replacement. 

Edit:

If we used the same hashing algorithm as FraudRecord, we'd even be able to use their database (maybe just link to it, not actively steal content).


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Dec 17, 2014)

Heh...yeah, this is why I never jumped on the FR bandwagon, and just kept all of our anti-fraud in house.  My inbox gets enough BS from "Let me cut you a great deal" upstreams as it is.


----------



## Steven F (Dec 17, 2014)

Aldryic C said:


> Heh...yeah, this is why I never jumped on the FR bandwagon, and just kept all of our anti-fraud in house.  My inbox gets enough BS from "Let me cut you a great deal" upstreams as it is.


Let me cut you a great deal...


----------



## DomainBop (Dec 17, 2014)

The SPAMMER's email header info:

DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fraudrecord.com; q=dns/txt;
 s=pic; t=1418831178; h=Sender: Content-Type: Mime-Version: Message-Id:
 Subject: From: To: Date;
 bh=HPKNf2jI4/ycXn44kAK8mNqaxuZKWgV4KZVh8+7bwPw=; b=3O46SIO+YvaHaA/YGB8s7JKboR2zrRn0FuIXORU54lxb4Gc36ai7dBu3YcitgEkUsaAj7vEJ
 Bmfmz15A1a9O/5BBV1pTQtDkwfrdUD5hcgilkDIarEYyWxJEKRD2qUNVdZJfUaoYst93ZI9d
 NH0cd2qn3iGtdZcPmmW973SIMUk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=fraudrecord.com; s=pic;
 q=dns; h=Date: To: From: Subject: Message-Id: Mime-Version:
 Content-Type: Sender;
 b=U82qF9jvlJ/Cxcrtynq/8XtV4RI/YRcTzyIeisZK7kfFl7jIgIa3vHN/QNyVZpHGx9mdYz
 rY6iWtxI+sErx/WbRmOV+wEcMvwUk69U1aHSATHEGEZbGqCemOwNjSfHXxpeeagZtkf0Y9wT
 xVT/+OsJRGhGAeAudXBziRA/CzU4k=
Received: from fraudrecord.com (chicago.storagenic.net [96.30.40.236]) by
 mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 5491a535.7fbc949c82d0-in6; Wed, 17 Dec 2014
 15:45:57 -0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:45:57 +0200

Bgp.he.net info on the SPAMMER:




> 96.30.40.236 resolves to chicago.storagenic.net.
> 
> The following A records are set to 96.30.40.236:
> chicago2.storagenic.net, harzem.com, kutay.com, onlineyet.com, storagenic.com, vecoprotect.com


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Steven F said:


> If anyone would like, I would be open to creating a community version of FraudRecord. Public code base, semi-public database (only for programmers), et cetera. We could have a dispute function that would allow pre-approved members to moderate the disputes (keep details private, so you don't know who you're moderating for) and even roll out a few "premium" features (text/phone call verification, maybe more?).
> 
> You could easily pop up a site that does the same thing in just a few hours. I'd be willing to start working on it over the weekend, if there was interest, using Laravel (it'll keep things simple).
> 
> ...


So you're proposing to make a FraudRecord alternative that is run by a hosting provider? No thank you. I know you're intent is not malicious, but I would rather use a system that's run by an impartial third party versus a competitor. Imagine if CompanyX ran a fraud submission website and they wanted to get a one-up on the competition by holding back fraud reports for clients that spam and chargeback so their competitors will get IPs blacklisted and hit with chargeback fees or even worse, adjusting reports submitted by other companies so that company looks bad. Again, I'm not saying you would do this but it's along the same lines of thought as to why websites like LEB/LET should not be run by a company in the same field that they post ads for, it's a trust kind of thing and even if you are well trusted, there will be some people with that thought in the back of their mind and it ruins it for a lot of people.


----------



## DomainBop (Dec 17, 2014)

> Limestone and some shady marketing/advertising.... Haven't they done something questionable prior?


2 years ago 24khost complained on LET about receiving an unsolicited sales email from them.  LSN responded by sending Chief a DMCA asking to have the copy of the email removed.

http://lowendbox.com/blog/limestonenetworks-threatens-lowendtalk-with-dmca/

http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/5328/spammed-by-limestonenetworks/p1


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Ok, so instead of this back and forth. How about we actually do something about this instead of just complaining about it and hoping our words can change the minds of somebody who is spending money to provide us a completely free service that is invaluable to the industry.

If every provider who posted in this thread sponsored $5 per month (Contributor status), that's $360/year that they didn't have yesterday. I highly doubt they are making $360/year off that one e-mail so let's vote with our wallets and get the ads pulled and the e-mails stopped.

Sure, you are welcome to complain all you want on a public forum. Nobody will stop you to my knowledge, but this is the 2nd thread regarding FraudRecord and LSN this year so you can see how forum posts don't do much and when given the ability to make a change people would rather not.


----------



## Steven F (Dec 17, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> Ok, so instead of this back and forth. How about we actually do something about this instead of just complaining about it and hoping our words can change the minds of somebody who is spending money to provide us a completely free service that is invaluable to the industry.
> 
> If every provider who posted in this thread sponsored $5 per month (Contributor status), that's $360/year that they didn't have yesterday. I highly doubt they are making $360/year off that one e-mail so let's vote with our wallets and get the ads pulled and the e-mails stopped.
> 
> Sure, you are welcome to complain all you want on a public forum. Nobody will stop you to my knowledge, but this is the 2nd thread regarding FraudRecord and LSN this year so you can see how forum posts don't do much and when given the ability to make a change people would rather not.


What's the cost of being a Platinum Sponsor?


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Steven F said:


> What's the cost of being a Platinum Sponsor?


Looks like $50/month according to their website.


----------



## Steven F (Dec 17, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> Looks like $50/month according to their website.


I just saw that. Honestly, it's kind of bothering me now. He's making $250+ a month on the site, while not a large amount, it's still something. To send out these Limestone e-mails (and note that they're not even a listed sponsor!) is really infuriating me.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Steven F said:


> I just saw that. Honestly, it's kind of bothering me now. He's making $250+ a month on the site, while not a large amount, it's still something. To send out these Limestone e-mails (and note that they're not even a listed sponsor!) is really infuriating me.


I was just looking at the pricing for the data center his servers are hosted in and it doesn't look like $250/month would cover his costs even with the free DDOS protection we're giving him.


----------



## Steven F (Dec 17, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> I was just looking at the pricing for the data center his servers are hosted in and it doesn't look like $250/month would cover his costs even with the free DDOS protection we're giving him.


Why does he need an entire dedicated server? A small VPS would be more than enough to host FraudRecord.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

Steven F said:


> Why does he need an entire dedicated server? A small VPS would be more than enough to host FraudRecord.


I guess the 100% uptime is important for him (and based on the traffic to his website, it's important for 900+ other companies also). While I agree it could possibly be hosted cheaper, I would never complain about somebody hosting a website that is important (and one that needs to be online 24/7/365) on a premium provider.


----------



## DomainBop (Dec 17, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> I was just looking at the pricing for the data center his servers are hosted in and it doesn't look like $250/month would cover his costs even with the free DDOS protection we're giving him.


Based on the IP address the email was sent from and a traceroute (that shows vz----.wiredtree.com), it looks like FR is hosted on a VPS at WiredTree (WiredTree is the d/b/a name of Cogswell Enterprises Inc).


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

DomainBop said:


> Based on the IP address the email was sent from and a traceroute (that shows vz----.wiredtree.com), it looks like FR is hosted on a VPS at WiredTree (WiredTree is the d/b/a name of Cogswell Enterprises Inc).


Hmm, that's a different IP than his webserver.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

Its gone fully commercial, just license it for $20 p/month everyone will pay, problem solved.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

AnthonySmith said:


> Its gone fully commercial, just license it for $20 p/month everyone will pay, problem solved.


This was discussed but it wouldn't work and would most likely ruin the project.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> This was discussed but it wouldn't work and would most likely ruin the project.


I missed the discussion, what were the reasons it would not work and why would it ruin the project?


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

AnthonySmith said:


> I missed the discussion, what were the reasons it would not work and why would it ruin the project?


Harzem was against charging for it and even if he did it would alienate new companies from participating. Since the whole point of FraudRecord is community involvement, limiting who can be involved would at the very least limit growth and would be detrimental for those providers who are paying for it.

These are just my thoughts but I feel very strongly about this project because of the sheer amount of money this has saved my company.


----------



## drmike (Dec 17, 2014)

AnthonySmith said:


> Its gone fully commercial, just license it for $20 p/month everyone will pay, problem solved.


I don't think $20 is right price point but more like $5-10 a month is something most people would pay without even thinking.   Do the math 900 companies at $5 = $4500 a month.   Even if 400 companies chipped in $5 a month = $2k a month.  Serious scratch.

There is no such thing as free, at least not for some long sustained period, unless someone has other cash funders, advertising, etc.   Just remember that when benevolent, giving souls offer the sky then cry later with their teary eyes about the money.

Why this project wasn't a paid one purely is about mass adoption resistance at the start.  But that time is gone, project is mature and running, has multiple funders and now advertisers and advertisers who are 'spamming'.  Subscription time!


----------



## fixidixi (Dec 17, 2014)

AnthonySmith said:


> It would have been a clever move by LSN, buy the network that comes pre-equipped with hosts contact details and permission to spam, get their adverts in front of every admin on WHMCS on a daily basis.


I wouldnt call that clever: spamming admins is.. bold.. at least here once i see a services that i had seen in spam im definately going to ignore it without checking further into it. thats a no-go for me...



devonblzx said:


> Good point.  Complaining about small things with a *free* service with no real alternatives is kind of pointless.


Man I also see your point but get this:

If its a free service.. then it should be free.. if they cant handle the workload then they should send a notification stating the situtation, and the options. or even telling you that well we are going to send newsletters from now on as a source of income. if you want/need/are interested : read on if not [uNSUB,CANCEL whetever] here..

and then after you've notified and gave ppl a chance to decide if they want to use your service, read your ads and stuff then its ok to send stuff to them. But i think its NOT OK like this.

Think about it: what would happen if every single service you've ever signed up for for free would send you 1 spam monthly....

I think its morally wrong to tell ppl something and when the situation changes do whatever you want without fair warning..


----------



## DomainBop (Dec 17, 2014)

AnthonySmith said:


> Its gone fully commercial, just license it for $20 p/month everyone will pay, problem solved.


$20 is more than the monthly profit of the average summer host (or the current crop of "DDOS protected, RAID1" OVH resellers or the average underage host who isn't old enough to enter into a contract) so the number of providers using it would likely decrease substantially if he started charging...

Two suggestions I would make is that: #1 Harzem setup a separate email list for sending adverts like this (a closed loop opt-in list as required by WiredTree's AUP) so in the future he could avoid having people opening "I got spammed by FR" threads, and #2 Harzem should report himself to FR for this LSN mailblast incident.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

I don't understand the argument @KuJoe its already receiving money.

I agree it has saved me a lot of stress, but I remember the initial discussion years ago that kicked the whole thing off, even back then the idea of charging for more than the minimum amount of API calls was widely accepted, and most people fully expected to pay for this.

The way I see it is: Here is some regular money, use it as you wish, stop pushing LSN adverts in my face, if you don't want to profit then that is also fine, transparently support a charity with anything left over, everyone wins and SPAM finally has a good outcome.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 17, 2014)

I spoke with Harzem and that should be the last ad via e-mail he expects to send out.


We'll be signing up for a sponsorship shortly and I hope others will also to help support the cause.


----------



## AnthonySmith (Dec 17, 2014)

Perhaps a bulk email with this link: http://www.fraudrecord.com/report-manager/index.php?action=become-sponsor would have helped I had no idea it existed, the first "news" letter I get is an LSN advert, bit backwards but OK we all make bad decisions I have made my fair share for sure, I will sign up as a sponsor as well.


----------



## Nett (Dec 17, 2014)

Heh...sign up an account with one of Spamhaus's honey pot emails and get the IPs blacklisted.


----------



## WSWD (Dec 17, 2014)

I received the spam as well.  This comes after the suspicious post herer a while back in which Limestone was asking about FraudRecord, yet they were already a "sponsor". 

Would not surprise me if Limestone is more than just a sponsor.  Just a gut feeling that there is something more going on than meets the eye.


----------



## Wintereise (Dec 17, 2014)

Nett said:


> Heh...sign up an account with one of Spamhaus's honey pot emails and get the IPs blacklisted.


There's no need to be a dick, it's an useful service that I'm sure most of us enjoy using.


----------



## LimestoneNetworks (Dec 18, 2014)

Hello Guys,

I was just notified of this thread. Just for your information, I didn't know that people had not opted-in for this email. While we're grateful for the various ad opportunities Harzem has provided us, we apologize for any inconvenience it has caused.

Sincerely,

Greg


----------



## Licensecart (Dec 18, 2014)

Wow! One email from a free service and people pull a big fuss over it. Man let's hope he does charge for FR then people wouldn't have it and then complain, but like someone said here you'd complain that it charges you now to use it.

Can never please some people. I bet the people who are complaining haven't signed up to HostingCon newsletters.


----------



## BlaZe (Dec 19, 2014)

I got it too but its just an email advert. They do have the right to earn money right ? If you are bothered about the spam email then just don't use their service ?


----------



## addressnode (Dec 19, 2014)

The resources used to run this are minimal, I don't see why ad's are needed at all.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 19, 2014)

addressnode said:


> The resources used to run this are minimal, I don't see why ad's are needed at all.


Care to share what the resources used for the project are? If you can also fill us in on the size of the DDOS attacks they received this week it would also be appreciated so I can stop checking the logs.


----------



## Flapadar (Dec 19, 2014)

DomainBop said:


> $20 is more than the monthly profit of the average summer host (or the current crop of "DDOS protected, RAID1" OVH resellers or the average underage host who isn't old enough to enter into a contract) so the number of providers using it would likely decrease substantially if he started charging...
> 
> Two suggestions I would make is that: #1 Harzem setup a separate email list for sending adverts like this (a closed loop opt-in list as required by WiredTree's AUP) so in the future he could avoid having people opening "I got spammed by FR" threads, and #2 Harzem should report himself to FR for this LSN mailblast incident.


Mind you, the kiddie hosts are going to mostly be the ones listing people as fraud because they left a bad review. Thing would probably be better without them.


----------



## Joshua-Epic (Dec 21, 2014)

What is happening here is LSN is paying for an advertisement service through Fraudrecord. In addition, I can almost guarantee Fraud record is getting some sort of affiliate kickback. The forum post previously referenced was one that I had created on Fraudrecord forums and to this day have yet to receive any sort of attention from the owner. In addition to this, due to the emailing practices involved, one of our brands have been contemplating whether or not to pull our sponsorship for FraudRecord.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 21, 2014)

Joshua-Epic said:


> What is happening here is LSN is paying for an advertisement service through Fraudrecord. In addition, I can almost guarantee Fraud record is getting some sort of affiliate kickback. The forum post previously referenced was one that I had created on Fraudrecord forums and to this day have yet to receive any sort of attention from the owner. In addition to this, due to the emailing practices involved, one of our brands have been contemplating whether or not to pull our sponsorship for FraudRecord.


You do know that removing the advertisement is extremely easy and Harzem even said he's ok with removing the ads if you don't want to see them in your WHMCS.

As for the "emailing practices involved", this was a single e-mail which will be the last according to Harzem. If he does send another e-mail then there's something to discuss but so far Harzem hasn't given me any reason to distrust him.


----------



## Joshua-Epic (Dec 21, 2014)

Removing the code is indeed easy as its only a simple line or two of coding in the addon. Still, from past experience, I highly doubt it will be the last email to be sent however I do hope I am wrong. We shall wait and see I suppose.


----------



## drmike (Dec 21, 2014)

Flapadar said:


> Mind you, the kiddie hosts are going to mostly be the ones listing people as fraud because they left a bad review. Thing would probably be better without them.


Has someone come across this situation with Fraudrecord and an ongoing issue or just a nagging suspicion?


----------



## Joshua-Epic (Dec 21, 2014)

drmike said:


> Has someone come across this situation with Fraudrecord and an ongoing issue or just a nagging suspicion?


I honestly can't imagine this as an issue. While "kiddie" hosts do use Fraud Record, more established hosting companies such as the ones you see on their sponsors list contribute significantly. I know throughout our network, our verifications team is instructed to utilize the system for reporting problematic customers as a courtesy to other hosting companies.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 21, 2014)

Joshua-Epic said:


> Removing the code is indeed easy as its only a simple line or two of coding in the addon. Still, from past experience, I highly doubt it will be the last email to be sent however I do hope I am wrong. We shall wait and see I suppose.


Harzem is welcome to lie to me, but I've seen the size of the DDOS attacks the site receives so it's not in his best interest if he wants our support. Heck, I don't care about the newsletters but he has to be straight with me so hopefully he is especially since this project only works if there's trust for all parties involved.


----------



## Joshua-Epic (Dec 22, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> Harzem is welcome to lie to me, but I've seen the size of the DDOS attacks the site receives so it's not in his best interest if he wants our support. Heck, I don't care about the newsletters but he has to be straight with me so hopefully he is especially since this project only works if there's trust for all parties involved.


I agree it only works if there is trust between all parties. I only wish more hosting providers would realize that it is very much possible to coexist with one another considering the sheer size of the industry. If not only on a client reputation aspect but on an overall operations aspect. I remember back in  when I was with Site5 and the whole wordpress hackathon was going on affecting numerous other CMS's as well. The true reason why were able to stop the problem and apply a permanent fix to the issue was with working with another hosting giant to put all of our linux experience together to track down the string of malicious code and enable a modsec rule to block the attacks. It just goes to show how important it is to trust one another in the hosting industry as providers.


----------



## Flapadar (Dec 22, 2014)

drmike said:


> Has someone come across this situation with Fraudrecord and an ongoing issue or just a nagging suspicion?


I saw a thread a few months back (I think it was on LEB) where a customer had left a bad review of a host and subsequently was marked as fraud in fraudrecord. After a lot of pestering the report got removed.

Pretty sure it was one of the usual drama brands, though I'm not entirely sure.


----------



## Joshua-Epic (Dec 22, 2014)

I wouldn't mind taking a look at that situation. Seems quite childish for a provider to report someone as fraud for leaving a bad review. The correct way to handle the situation is to reach out to the customer and attempt to settle dispute.


----------



## KuJoe (Dec 22, 2014)

Flapadar said:


> I saw a thread a few months back (I think it was on LEB) where a customer had left a bad review of a host and subsequently was marked as fraud in fraudrecord. After a lot of pestering the report got removed.
> 
> Pretty sure it was one of the usual drama brands, though I'm not entirely sure.


If you're talking about the thread I think you are, the client did a chargeback or opened a Paypal dispute to get their money back after service was provided. The problem was that the provider embellished the fraud report and instead of simply stating what the client did, they weren't 100% truthful (claiming the client was doing other stuff that they were not doing) and the client got the FraudRecord report removed (I believe it was replaced by a more accurate report). The reason why it made a big stink was because it ended up preventing the client from ordering service elsewhere because the inaccurate report (although if the provider was truthful and put in the report that the client opened a Paypal dispute or did a chargeback, I'm sure they still wouldn't have gotten service).


----------

