Robert from SI.... A question...

[venomx]

I use venomx on both searchtraffic and popuptraffic and never recieved my check. I have emailed both admins and you. Can you please tell me what I did to not get paid? Thanks my email is viper@venomx.com

[pk]

why don't u email them?
admin@searchtraffic.com
admin@popuptraffic.com

or you can go to
http://209.196.6.69/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi
and ask questions.

[venomx]

I did email a few times.

[solace]

So did I (email them. Different problems), and never got a reply, even after bringing up on geektalk forum.

[syanet]

Did you bring it up on the SI boards ( http://www.sictalk.com )?

[Robert from SI]

Our mail is down due to a denial of service attack by a cheating group.

I'm not answering questions about individual accounts in public fourms any more.

Sorry.

[solace]

We understand the sensitivities of dealing with individual accounts in forums. But can we also know when will we be getting replies to our queries in email? An estimated time would help, then indefinitely waiting.

[Robert from SI]

If you'd like the name of the cheating group responsible for the DOS attack I can pass it on to you and you can ask them.

[solace]

So I take that your answer to requests for help and clarification of matters like these will have to wait indefinitely?

[Robert from SI]

If you'd like the name of the cheating group that is responsible for the DOS attack on our mail servers I'll give it to you and you can discuss it with them.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Grrrrr... I've got 5 emails to different Standard Internet employee's all bounced throughout yesterday... Can't you get a new mail server or something? or pay-off the cheating group? ;)

Or maybe go on ICQ... :)

[solace]

Moo: I didn't get any mails bounced back at all. 4 in total, over 3 weeks. Until this DOS comes about suddenly.

Robert: Thanks for at least giving such an answer here. :)

[}:8) Supermoo]

I thought it happened last week, so has this been a problem for a few weeks? Now, that's not really good. :(

Here are my bouncers;


Subject: failure notice

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at janus.hosting4u.net.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<robert@standardinternet.com>:
Sorry, I wasn't able to establish an SMTP connection. (#4.4.1)
I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.

[EccentrixDotCom]

If you'd like the name of the cheating group that is responsible for the DOS attack on our mail servers I'll give it to you and you can discuss it with them.

I would love to know it.
but on the more serious side, I had the same problem on my server for my freewebhost and I contacted our provider and had them block the attack at before it entered our router, which seemed to help. This way our servers weren't having to deny it straight forward. The attack ya'll are having is probably much greater than ours was, but it is a thought.

[}:8) Supermoo]

I hope it helps, although no response from Robert. :(

[Toefur]

Is it the same people responsible for the mail servers as the SIC forums???

If so... who are they! Where do they live!? I wanna kick their asses... I'm soooo incredibly board...

[solace]

Moo, whether the DOS had carried on for 3 weeks, I do not know.

What I do know is that I have been repeatedly trying to get Robert's attention for the same amount of time, with absolutely no replies, except a request for me to bring it to private email (only in the third week), which he did not respond to, supposedly because of DOS.

It is not fair that I (and others having problems) have to use public forums to contact him regarding account problems. Whatever problems SI is facing, they should have a way of settling it, and members should not be driven into desperation and going public.

[}:8) Supermoo]

I know what you mean, and I'm aware that it's not the best business method.

Although, I do know how you're meant to deal with hackers, police? server updates? newer fire-walls?

What are you meant to do? :confused:

[Robert from SI]

This is why I'm contemplating stopping all public postings.

Solace, I'm insulted with the "supposedly" remark.

You're right, we took standardinternet.com offline since Saturday as a giant ruse to avoid answering email from a webmaster in Singapore who wants to badmouth us.

[solace]

Robert, there is nothing wrong with the "supposed" remark. You did not provide evidence for the DOS you so claimed. Now you claimed you took SI off to avoid "a Singaporean webmaster instead". And you clearly avoided answering 3 weeks of email and it so conveniently happened the DOS happened when I brought it up in forums. Your answers to my polite attempts to get even a remotely assuring response ended up with irresponisble remark like "I can give you their names and you can ask them". This is not a professional way of handling things, and just for this, justifies this thread.

Are you trying to stir up nationalisms and discrimination by bringing up my nationality here? I did not even bring up any details of my case, but merely stating the difficulties in contacting SI. Would you prefer me to state the full case in public forums?

Took SI offline for the sake of avoiding a Singaporean webmaster who merely wants to ask "I just learned of the ban of Singaporean webmasters. I would like to find out if I am still in SI's popuptraffic"? I am honored. Who are you trying to kid here? I wasn't making any accusations, appeals whatsoever. It was a very simple, straightforward matter. Very little cash is involved. You can keep them with my compliments. Why allow this tiny matter to be blown out of proportion?

That's why you hate to talk about these in public forums? We can do a lot of things in 3 weeks Robert, that includes finding whether an account is active. And I had the patience to just enquire about the status of my account, that's all, in private email. Why are you insinuating that cases like these are out to give you bad publicity when you chose not to handle it in private?

Lastly, mind your comment with "badmouth". You can quote my post from first to last letter and you will not find any evidence of badmouthing. All that I have said can be backed up by forum posts and email logs.

[Edited by solace on 04-10-2001 at 11:21 AM]

[Robert from SI]

Solace,

You're simply following your own agenda and trying to goad me into an arguement. You won't succede.

There is no sudden "ban" on webmasters from Singapore. PopUpTraffic.com does not now, nor has it ever permitted affiliates from Singapore. If you think it was a recent change you are simply wrong.

You joined the program without reading the terms, and now you are trying to put the blame on SI for your mistake.

The terms are clearly stated and it is not our admins job to email people and remind then to follow our terms. Just as the police do not pull your car over every day and remind you not to speed.

Lastly the suggestion of providing "proof" of a DOS attack is absurd. Our email was bouncing, the website was offline, and I publicly stated the cause was a DOS attack.

You now have complete free reign to say anything you like about me personally and SI. I will not respond further.

The good readers of this forum are welcome to take any statements you make as 100% fact.

[solace]

For less than a hundred dollars, I have very little motivation of goading you into an argument.

You said Popuptraffic had never allowed SG webmasters. And it is my fault that I did not read the terms. But the signup form clearly had SG listed when I had to state my nationality. So why was I accepted? Why was my account active even bringing attention to the admin (ignored) that I am singaporean, and I want to enquire whether SG is allowed or not?

A simple answer could have come three weeks ago: "I am sorry, but SG had never been allowed. Please remove your SI codes, and you will not be compensated for violating the rules" That would have be more than sufficient. Instead you chose to drag it on, even on this very recent thread, wanting me to wait indefinitely for your mail.

But I am not doubting your claim here. So I take it that I have made the mistake of not reading the terms properly. But that does not justify evasion of my clarification isn't it? I totally DID NOT know SG has never been allowed by SI. Is it so difficult to tell me that, private or public?I sought clarification in private, you evaded my emails, and you accuse me to wanting to badmouth SI. For a puny sum, this is not just insulting, but outright ridiculous.

I have said my share and the public will draw their own conclusions. I have read many posters who had problems with SI to be silenced by avid supporters. Not just the case I intervened, but countless previous incidences before. I drew the same conclusion then, thinking that these are cheaters who are trying to get back at SI. But after being the subject here, I have understood the importance of viewing such cases critically, especially when many webmasters do not have the benefits of legal advice as I do, and do not know their rights.

I have deleted my SI codes from my site on my own free will. I hope this is the conclusion you had hoped for.