From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 5 07:26:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9842116A4CE for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D8743FE0 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:26:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 3572C530A; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:26:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id CE9855308; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:26:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 5B8E033C6A; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:26:44 +0100 (CET) To: Ceri Davies References: <3FCF887E.7562.4A7C8BE3@localhost> <20031205150152.GM63350@submonkey.net> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:26:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20031205150152.GM63350@submonkey.net> (Ceri Davies's message of "Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:01:52 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.60 cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreshPorts fraud X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:26:56 -0000 Ceri Davies writes: > To their credit, absolutely nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is > an outright abuse, and if I were you I'd lodge a complaint with ICANN to > get the domain transferred to you. The side has been taken down, so it's hard to prove any wrong-doing. If the perps decide to fight the charges, it'll be Dan's word against theirs. The fact that Dan has had freshports.org for two and a half years while freshports.net was only registered two weeks ago would certainly help Dan's case, but I'm not sure that it would be enough. The complaints also cost money. A fraud suit backed with evidence from from PayPal might work, except the perps are in Sweden, so the cost of litigation would be truly horrendous, and it might turn out to be nearly impossible for a Swedish court to subpoena evidence from PayPal. The only practical recourse is for people who have actually donated money to file a complaint with PayPal. From what I've heard, PayPal generally (and summarily) sides with the donor in cases like this. That policy can spell real trouble for the recipient if the complaints are false, but in this case it works to Dan's advantage. Donors would get their money back, and the perps would lose their PayPal account, but not much else would happen. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no