<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Relief aid?</title>
	<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Administrator</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-936</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-936</guid>
					<description>EV1 has an abuse department that appears to only take action when pressured by NANAE or NANAB (risk of getting into or not getting out of SPEWS).

However, they do have legitimate customers as well. Including my webhost. Yes, spamhuntress.com is on EV1.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EV1 has an abuse department that appears to only take action when pressured by NANAE or NANAB (risk of getting into or not getting out of SPEWS).</p>
<p>However, they do have legitimate customers as well. Including my webhost. Yes, spamhuntress.com is on EV1.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: D. Scott Dobbie</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-935</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-935</guid>
					<description>Hi Ann,

Came across your site while doing a Google search on sylviocate@yahoo.com.  Yours was one of only two listings.  The other being
http://books.dreambook.com/flash718/
which seems to be the landing point for NUMEROUS bogus outfits, since every guestbook entry I could find was nothing but URL's of such sites.

My problem wasn't with spam - it was with doing searches on Google and having the top sites come up for things non-related.  You can see the pattern in the URLS.  And some "whois" checking on ownership showed many different addresses, etc., but that same email.

My most recent search in Google was for +"class action lawsuit" +weslo +tub

120 listings came up, and I haven't seen a valid one.

But the Tech info in the "whois" listings for those bogus URL's needs to be accurate.  And they all show the same company:
Tech ID:C8936810-LRMS
Tech Name:EV1 Servers Domain Services
Tech Organization:EV1.net
Tech Street1:390 Benmar
Tech Street2:Suite 200
Tech City:Houston
Tech State/Province:Texas
Tech Postal Code:77060
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7133337873
Tech Email:domains@ev1servers.net
Name Server:NS1.FLYMARS.INFO
Name Server:NS2.FLYMARS.INFO

The above phone number is valid.  Google shows it for:
Everyones Internet, (713) 333-7873, 2600 Southwest Fwy, Houston, TX 77098

These people have got to know who they're dealing with.

Here's a link regarding EV1 and their questionable hosting:
http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/spam_aaafeadhfi_ab/

There are a couple sites that sylviocate must've gotten wise with when registering them, since "whois" shows limited information, though the URL links have the same pattern and they were registered the first few months of the year by Tucows, such as: runback.com and ochroma.com.

My .02.

-Scott</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Ann,</p>
<p>Came across your site while doing a Google search on <a href="mailto:sylviocate@yahoo.com.">sylviocate@yahoo.com.</a>  Yours was one of only two listings.  The other being<br />
<a href="http://books.dreambook.com/flash718/" rel="nofollow">http://books.dreambook.com/flash718/</a><br />
which seems to be the landing point for NUMEROUS bogus outfits, since every guestbook entry I could find was nothing but URL&#8217;s of such sites.</p>
<p>My problem wasn&#8217;t with spam - it was with doing searches on Google and having the top sites come up for things non-related.  You can see the pattern in the URLS.  And some &#8220;whois&#8221; checking on ownership showed many different addresses, etc., but that same email.</p>
<p>My most recent search in Google was for +&#8221;class action lawsuit&#8221; +weslo +tub</p>
<p>120 listings came up, and I haven&#8217;t seen a valid one.</p>
<p>But the Tech info in the &#8220;whois&#8221; listings for those bogus URL&#8217;s needs to be accurate.  And they all show the same company:<br />
Tech ID:C8936810-LRMS<br />
Tech Name:EV1 Servers Domain Services<br />
Tech Organization:EV1.net<br />
Tech Street1:390 Benmar<br />
Tech Street2:Suite 200<br />
Tech City:Houston<br />
Tech State/Province:Texas<br />
Tech Postal Code:77060<br />
Tech Country:US<br />
Tech Phone:+1.7133337873<br />
Tech Email:domains@ev1servers.net<br />
Name Server:NS1.FLYMARS.INFO<br />
Name Server:NS2.FLYMARS.INFO</p>
<p>The above phone number is valid.  Google shows it for:<br />
Everyones Internet, (713) 333-7873, 2600 Southwest Fwy, Houston, TX 77098</p>
<p>These people have got to know who they&#8217;re dealing with.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a link regarding EV1 and their questionable hosting:<br />
<a href="http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/spam_aaafeadhfi_ab/" rel="nofollow">http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/spam_aaafeadhfi_ab/</a></p>
<p>There are a couple sites that sylviocate must&#8217;ve gotten wise with when registering them, since &#8220;whois&#8221; shows limited information, though the URL links have the same pattern and they were registered the first few months of the year by Tucows, such as: runback.com and ochroma.com.</p>
<p>My .02.</p>
<p>-Scott
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Raftery&#8217;s I.T. views  &#187; Blog Archive   &#187; A spam comment makes it through my comment spam defences</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-182</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-182</guid>
					<description>[...]  info, traceroute, etc.) and forwarded my findings to SpamHuntress. She subsequently wrote a comprehensive post on it. 	Searches on Google and MSN Search for the term &#8220;I came to your  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;]  info, traceroute, etc.) and forwarded my findings to SpamHuntress. She subsequently wrote a comprehensive post on it. 	Searches on Google and MSN Search for the term &#8220;I came to your  [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Raftery</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-181</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:38:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-181</guid>
					<description>Ah!

found a few more - won't bother mentioning them so!

A Google (and MSN) search for "came to your site accidentially," (including the inverted commas) shows they have been busy.

They are also using the comment text:
"I have learned about this at school today!" and
"Hey Jon did't know you are reading this too :0. Greets"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah!</p>
<p>found a few more - won&#8217;t bother mentioning them so!</p>
<p>A Google (and MSN) search for &#8220;came to your site accidentially,&#8221; (including the inverted commas) shows they have been busy.</p>
<p>They are also using the comment text:<br />
&#8220;I have learned about this at school today!&#8221; and<br />
&#8220;Hey Jon did&#8217;t know you are reading this too :0. Greets&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Administrator</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-180</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-180</guid>
					<description>Yes Tom, they do. I was trying not to give them any links though... Had to edit your comment so it wouldn't hyperlink.

They have LOTS of domains. I'm collecting as many as I can find, but won't put them up here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Tom, they do. I was trying not to give them any links though&#8230; Had to edit your comment so it wouldn&#8217;t hyperlink.</p>
<p>They have LOTS of domains. I&#8217;m collecting as many as I can find, but won&#8217;t put them up here.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Raftery</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-179</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:13:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-179</guid>
					<description>They also have etto.biz</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They also have etto.biz
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Administrator</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-178</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-178</guid>
					<description>Nah, too early. It takes a few days for results to enter Google. Have to use msn for very recently spamvertized material.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nah, too early. It takes a few days for results to enter Google. Have to use msn for very recently spamvertized material.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tom Raftery</title>
		<link>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-177</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:53:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://spamhuntress.com/2005/03/29/relief-aid/#comment-177</guid>
					<description>Quick follow-up Ann,

A Google search for 11say.com yields no results - has it been banned by Google, do you think?

Tom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quick follow-up Ann,</p>
<p>A Google search for 11say.com yields no results - has it been banned by Google, do you think?</p>
<p>Tom
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
