Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Server.IT SCAM
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Server.IT SCAM

Recently:

Good morning,
Recently some VPS (promo series services) have been used by some users in an anomalous way and against our regulations causing spamming and problems with some of our suppliers.
This has forced us to protect all our customers and others our classes and therefore in very fast times we have had to act in this sense:
All promo VPS will no longer be able to send mail with a Internal SMTP but only with an External SMTP
If you want this feature you can buy it the separate service by upgrading the SMTP OUT option.
The mail sending service through internal SMTP will be suspended from 23 March 2021 at 10 AM (Europe/Rome time).
We still apologize for this decision and this change in such fast times but we are having problems due to users who make improper use of the service.
Regards,
Server.IT Staff

SMTP Unlocked Cost 79 EUR/Yr.

VPS Promo Cost 11.88 EUR/Yr.

"This has forced us to protect all our customers" - They mean "to abuse all our customers"!

Comments

  • How is this a scam bud? Did they specifically advertise it as an SMTP vps?

  • Not a scam - they are explicitly following their Terms of service:

    _16) Changes

    Art. 16.1 Virtual Solution reserves the right to change the conditions indicated in this agreement and the fees applicable to this agreement at any time, by giving notice by e-mail.

    Art. 16.2 The Customer has the right to withdraw within 15 days by written communication, to be sent by fax or by e-mail. In case of lack of communication by the Customer, the changes made are considered accepted and will come into force at the first contract renewal._

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • SWN_Michael SWN_Michael Member, Provider

    Yea... This isn't a scam. If they advertised as having mail ports open, then said you had to pay a fee for them to actually be open, that would be a scam. I don't think it's reasonable to charge a fee for this, but it's not a scam.

    Spearware Networks | AS212647 | Premium Shared, Reseller, and VPS Hosting in Tampa, FL | https://spearwarenetworks.com

  • netguynetguy Member

    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    to protect all our customers

    It's lie.

  • SGrafSGraf Member, Provider
    edited March 23

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    to protect all our customers

    It's lie.

    Potentially not. To simplify it:

    The issue is that if a lot of abuse originates from the IP-Resources of a specific provider/host/operator, then this may lead to all of their resources having problems in mail delivery due to blacklisting.

    MyRoot.PW ★ Dedicated Servers ★ LIR-Services ★ Web-Hosting ★
    ★ Locations: Austria + Netherlands + US ★ [email protected]

  • @DataGizmos said:
    Not a scam - they are explicitly following their Terms of service:

    _16) Changes

    Art. 16.1 Virtual Solution reserves the right to change the conditions indicated in this agreement and the fees applicable to this agreement at any time, by giving notice by e-mail.

    Art. 16.2 The Customer has the right to withdraw within 15 days by written communication, to be sent by fax or by e-mail. In case of lack of communication by the Customer, the changes made are considered accepted and will come into force at the first contract renewal._

    The last line is counterintuitive to the provider's change. They should remove that sentence so it'll apply by the 15 days without written withdrawal.

  • jarjar Provider

    Probably hit a bad RBL and got threats from a server / colo provider.

    Founder @ MXroute

  • @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    to protect all our customers

    It's lie.

    It's not. Many residential ISP'S block mail right from the start to prevent spam. So do many VPS providers and others only open port 25 with a ticket and reasonable request.

    But you're a shitty customer. What you should have done was contact them and kindly inform them that you purchased the VPS with the express intent to send mail from it that isn't spam. See if they'll refund, credit or just give you the SMTP package for first year free.

    But you went and threw a sissy fit. I'd refund you if I was the provider.

    Thanked by 1g4m3r
  • netguynetguy Member

    @TimboJones said:
    But you're a shitty customer.

    It's better to be a shitty customer than a shitty hoster! One shitty customer is one customer but a shitty hoster is a great problem for all its customers. Server.it is shitty!!!

  • @netguy said:
    It's better to be a shitty customer than a shitty hoster! One shitty customer is one customer but a shitty hoster is a great problem for all its customers. Server.it is shitty!!!

    You should join the Olympics, you're very good at mental gymnastics.

  • thedpthedp Member

    It's all good folks.

    It's the PMS kicking in.

    DP - Tech and Hosting-related Domain Names for sale. PM for list/details.

  • netguynetguy Member

    @jmgcaguicla said:

    @netguy said:
    It's better to be a shitty customer than a shitty hoster! One shitty customer is one customer but a shitty hoster is a great problem for all its customers. Server.it is shitty!!!

    You should join the Olympics, you're very good at mental gymnastics.

    Thanks a lot :)

  • Not a scam. Looks like they really just don't want more glue sniffers using their services to send spam and other associated crap. Make the price really high so nobody buys it, and if they do, they aren't likely to do the stupid things on it, and the provider makes a good profit.

    Thanked by 1randvegeta

    I <3 Nexus Bytes and Direct Admin <3

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Sigh, another kid having PMS...

    "Jarland is stupid."

  • defaultdefault Member
    edited March 25

    PMS...

    Fastmako (aff) - another cheap VPS.

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    If are so unhappy with the service, ask for refund for the remainder of the term and move to another provider.

    Thanked by 1randvegeta
  • @dev_vps said:

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    If are so unhappy with the service, ask for refund for the remainder of the term and move to another provider.

    But then how will OP PMS and create drama here :neutral:

    Thanked by 1randvegeta
  • defaultdefault Member

    Thanked by 1ariq01

    Fastmako (aff) - another cheap VPS.

  • DazzleDazzle Member

    You have been deemed unqualified to manage a virtual machine on our platform.

    Please find another provider.

    Thanked by 1randvegeta

    UpCloud free $25 through this aff link - Linode, DigitalOcean and Vultr alternative, multiple location, IPv6.

  • _MS__MS_ Member

    @Dazzle said:
    You have been deemed unqualified to manage a virtual machine on our platform.

    Please find another provider.

    Hi, Alex Lee.

  • LTnigerLTniger Member

    PMS fumes all over the thread, inhale deeply.

    Thanked by 1its420somewhere

    #!/Bashblog.net | Free Wordpress Hosting | If you can't idle, what's the point?

  • javax1javax1 Member

    @Dazzle said:
    You have been deemed unqualified to manage a virtual machine on our platform.

    Please find another provider.

    I believe that the statement "have been used by some users" doesn't pin the problem to a specific user.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  • @javax1 said:

    @Dazzle said:
    You have been deemed unqualified to manage a virtual machine on our platform.

    Please find another provider.

    I believe that the statement "have been used by some users" doesn't pin the problem to a specific user.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Because he doesn't understand the business of hosting enough to understand preventing email spam servers on $12/year service is not abuse and makes the network healthier. He's a fucking crybaby and quite likely part of the problem. After all, he never started off the post like, "this affects my legitimate email server..."

  • jsgjsg Member

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    It costs a lot of money to clean up after spammer a__holes.

    Btw, why do you still have your VPS with them, if they are a oh soooooo evil provider?

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • serv_eeserv_ee Member

    @jsg said:

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    It costs a lot of money to clean up after spammer a__holes.

    Btw, why do you still have your VPS with them, if they are a oh soooooo evil provider?

    Cause even shared hosts offer SMTP? What the fuck are you even arguing about? 79 a year for SMTP...lol out of the their fucking mind.

    hm. I've lost a machine.. literally lost. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

  • jsgjsg Member

    @serv_ee said:

    @jsg said:

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    It costs a lot of money to clean up after spammer a__holes.

    Btw, why do you still have your VPS with them, if they are a oh soooooo evil provider?

    Cause even shared hosts offer SMTP? What the fuck are you even arguing about? 79 a year for SMTP...lol out of the their fucking mind.

    Everyone is free to pick from cheaper offers ...

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • javax1javax1 Member

    @TimboJones said: After all, he never started off the post like, "this affects my legitimate email server..."

    And since when are users required to start posts with a statement like that? Neither he started the post stating that he didn't run a legitimate server.

    @TimboJones said: Because he doesn't understand the business of hosting enough to understand preventing email spam servers on $12/year service is not abuse and makes the network healthier

    He is a user (likely a consumer in the eyes of the law if he did not registered as a business and the provider is registered within the EU), not a provider so he is not required to understand the business. Besides that SMPT OUT was part of the YEARLY offering as far as I am aware, so it is rightful for the consumer to assume and expect that it will remain part of the offering for the period contracted - unless the provider limited the use of the feature at the point of sale.

    @TimboJones said: quite likely part of the problem

    Once again, he was not pinpointed as part of the problem. The provider mentioned "some users"

    @TimboJones said: He's a fucking crybaby

    I find this a bit rude, is it really that difficult not to offend others?

  • @serv_ee said:

    @jsg said:

    @netguy said:
    They want much money for SMTP. It was not in the yearly contract.

    It costs a lot of money to clean up after spammer a__holes.

    Btw, why do you still have your VPS with them, if they are a oh soooooo evil provider?

    Cause even shared hosts offer SMTP? What the fuck are you even arguing about? 79 a year for SMTP...lol out of the their fucking mind.

    Shared hosts have limits and spam filters. 50 is default on one I use.

  • @javax1 said:

    @TimboJones said: After all, he never started off the post like, "this affects my legitimate email server..."

    And since when are users required to start posts with a statement like that? Neither he started the post stating that he didn't run a legitimate server.

    Are you serious? You mean context and the full story? Yeah, that's expected. When people leave out pertinent details, it's usually for a reason that reflects poorly on OP.

    @TimboJones said: Because he doesn't understand the business of hosting enough to understand preventing email spam servers on $12/year service is not abuse and makes the network healthier

    He is a user (likely a consumer in the eyes of the law if he did not registered as a business and the provider is registered within the EU), not a provider so he is not required to understand the business. Besides that SMPT OUT was part of the YEARLY offering as far as I am aware, so it is rightful for the consumer to assume and expect that it will remain part of the offering for the period contracted - unless the provider limited the use of the feature at the point of sale.

    He does need to understand how an industry works to be aware of potential issues. You don't know how ransomware works but you better be fucking aware of it, right? We all know spam exists and it's a major issue for mail delivery. Fucking know this.

    Most importantly, he needs to know what "scam" is before blasting someone (hint, it requires intent), FFS. If you read my previous post, I said he should have contacted the provider to seek compensation before being a dick.

    Hell, maybe he did and conveniently left that out, too.

    @TimboJones said: quite likely part of the problem

    Once again, he was not pinpointed as part of the problem. The provider mentioned "some users"

    Right. No one specifically was, so it's a general problem. But again, OP never complained his legitimate, required mail service was impacted.

    @TimboJones said: He's a fucking crybaby

    I find this a bit rude, is it really that difficult not to offend others?

    I try, but it is difficult when people use "scam" incorrectly. Worse than being rude. Being called a criminal is way worse than being called an asshole. Jesus Christ.

  • JasonMJasonM Member
    edited March 27

    IF they had specifically advertised that with Per Year promo pricing of VPS the user will get open port and now that user has paid for the year, he is entitled to get all features/benefits as advertised. During next billing (renewal) the host and disable certain feature with advance notice to the user.

    Else I would say its inclining towards scam.

    Think if tomorrow they say they've blocked port 80/443 and your sites are inaccessible unless your pay "please open port fee".

    Also IF some users among the VPS promo users had abused this smtp-out (internal) service then host has right to disable access for such users only and not a blanket-ban on legitimate users who send 10 to 50 business emails per day! Let the abusers buy what ever smtp-out or external smtp services.

    But the smtp unlocked price is 7x that of the VPS promo! that's surely a SCAM (for legit users)

  • @javax1 said:

    @TimboJones said: He's a fucking crybaby

    I find this a bit rude, is it really that difficult not to offend others?

    You're being obtuse..

    Thanked by 1TimboJones

    I <3 Nexus Bytes and Direct Admin <3

  • TheLinuxBugTheLinuxBug Member
    edited March 27

    @JasonM said:
    IF they had specifically advertised that with Per Year promo pricing of VPS the user will get open port and now that user has paid for the year, he is entitled to get all features/benefits as advertised. During next billing (renewal) the host and disable certain feature with advance notice to the user.

    Else I would say its inclining towards scam.

    Think if tomorrow they say they've blocked port 80/443 and your sites are inaccessible unless your pay "please open port fee".

    Also IF some users among the VPS promo users had abused this smtp-out (internal) service then host has right to disable access for such users only and not a blanket-ban on legitimate users who send 10 to 50 business emails per day! Let the abusers buy what ever smtp-out or external smtp services.

    But the smtp unlocked price is 7x that of the VPS promo! that's surely a SCAM (for legit users)

    The problem is, you say this as a customer and not as someone whom has any experience at all with running such a service. If you actually knew what it took to run a host and had to spend about 10-20 hours working with different spam groups (lets be fair and say this is a perfect world and your paying your employee $20 per hour, so that's $200-$400 lost) because some jackass purchased 10 different VPS on your range and used them all to blast out spam, getting your whole range listed and then resulting in ALL of your customers writing in because e-mail can no longer be successfully delivered.

    I actually think they took a more enlightened approach, because I imagine the people most affected by this decision is those whom were already abusing this. Most people these days use an external mail delivery service if mail delivery is important to them, since more and more this same thing occurs and either you end up in a blacklisted range with poor delivery or the poor host gets abused and disables it.

    Sure you lost a 'convenience' of the service, but now if you pay the $80.00 or setup your own external SMTP service you will have a better guarantee that your e-mail will actually be delivered, since you will know the range isn't going to be completely dirty and blocked everywhere.

    If you were the host and all the sudden 1-2 customers whom came and bought 10-20 servers completely dirtied your whole range for 100-200$ and you end up spending the next 3 days (3 x 8 hours @ $20/hr = $480) to a week (5 x 8 hours @ $20/hr = $800) trying to get the range delisted, begging the lists to delist you so that your larger customers whom actually pay you $$$$ don't get angry and leave you. It just turns out not to be worth it to deal with.

    So I would have seen two possible end goals and I actually think you guys got the better end of the stick. Hosts whom have dealt with this in the past here have actually made the opposite decision -- just complete close down their low end VPS hosting and move into working with only larger businesses. In this case, they just shut off port 25 and even provided you an option to have it re-enabled which will provide a better guarantee that if you do pay, your e-mail will actually go through.

    TL;DR: I think you should write them and say, "Thank you for not letting all the abusers deter you from being in this business and taking care of the abuse, I look forward to a higher quality service", instead of being upset. Then, go setup a SMTP plugin in your WordPress site and set it up to use a Gmail account, mailchannels, etc. if you don't want to pay the $80 -- Gmail is free and there are lots of services out there than offer low to no cost entry level mail delivery.

    my 2 cents.

    Cheers!

    Thanked by 1tomazu

    Have an Allwinner H3 device? Check out H3Droid! | Lichee Pi Zero - The 6$ SBC | #SYSarm - Get It! | Armbian | Atomic Pi Mirror
    22+ Years IT Experience in Linux/Windows Hosting, Administration and Development Services

  • defaultdefault Member
    edited March 27

    @TheLinuxBug - very nice presentation, but I also wonder if you would think the same if port 80 was blocked.

    Edit: I have 5 servers with Server.IT. None of them uses SMTP (or anything related to email). I have marked them all for cancellation simply because I can't trust them anymore.

    Thanked by 1skorupion

    Fastmako (aff) - another cheap VPS.

  • seriesnseriesn Member, Top Provider
    edited March 27

    @default said:
    @TheLinuxBug - very nice presentation, but I also wonder if you would think the same if port 80 was blocked.

    Edit: I have 5 servers with Server.IT. None of them uses SMTP or email. I have marked them all for cancellation simply because I can't trust them anymore.

    No one in their right mind would be blocking port 80.

    Unfortunately the analogy above doesn't work for the same reason, why you would lock your car door but keep your window open.

    Thanked by 1HostEONS
  • defaultdefault Member

    @seriesn said:

    @default said:
    @TheLinuxBug - very nice presentation, but I also wonder if you would think the same if port 80 was blocked.

    Edit: I have 5 servers with Server.IT. None of them uses SMTP or email. I have marked them all for cancellation simply because I can't trust them anymore.

    No one with their right mind would be blocking port 80.

    Unfortunately the analogy above doesn't work for the same reason, why you would lock your car door but keep your window open.

    Ask Google. They would want it blocked to use only HTTPS in Chrome.

    A locked car is like an idling server. An opened window means you offer something in that car, but you can open the window just a bit, to have the air filtered.

    Thanked by 1seriesn

    Fastmako (aff) - another cheap VPS.

  • javax1javax1 Member

    @TimboJones said: He does need to understand how an industry works to be aware of potential issues

    There is a difference between need and a requirement.

    @TimboJones said: I try, but it is difficult when people use "scam" incorrectly. Worse than being rude. Being called a criminal is way worse than being called an asshole. Jesus Christ.

    I do agree that the word scam is wrong within this context but also it is wrong to assume that he was doing something illegal or that he was part of the problem. If I was affected by port 25 being blocked because of "some users'" actions, I'd refer to it that the provider did not deliver the service as described through the period it was contracted for, so is unreliable. (But this would be me)

    @TimboJones said: OP never complained his legitimate

    I don't believe he has to.

    To sum up, I can't pin a spammer label (or other) to him based on the information provided in the posts. I don't deal with assumptions. I also have my doubts, too but don't have proof to "convict".

    I think that I can't go further with this discussion without any new facts besides what I already wrote.

  • jvnadrjvnadr Member
    edited March 27

    If they sold a cheap bunch of servers with yearly contracts, they should be prepared that an offer like this could attract some shady clients, so, they should have filters and/or policies ready to deal with spam tries.
    I can understand the difficulty or a provider to deal with cleaning ip ranges, but they could be proactive and had other methods to forbid that (e.g. limit outgoing mails, automatically suspend or terminate clients that begin to spam etc.). Nowadays, it is not so difficult for a provider to actively monitor his services to prevent spamming from his servers. They could also advertise their offer saying from the begining that SMTP is disabled.
    Now, after incidents, a fair move would be from them to limit outgoing mail in a very low margin or disable all smtp services by default and reopen it on case by case, asking from clients to open a ticket and ask for it - maybe with an extra validation of his ID. Usually, a client that asks it and give a reason for that, is not a spammer.
    Asking 80$ on top of initial price to reopen it, is a shady practice and shows incapability handling a hosting company on both technical and managing fields...

  • HostEONSHostEONS Member, Provider

    I doubt if it's possible limit number of emails going out from a vps for the vps provider unless the provider is providing their own MTA that again means SMTP Port needs to remain blocked and mails will be going from provider's IP not the VPS IP, it can be easily don with shared hosting.

    We ourselves block SMTP Port by default on all our VPS nodes and if a client contacts we open it for that client unless client wants to open SMTP Port for multiple IP then in that case we have to ask more questions

    Asking for extra $$ to open SMTP Port does not sounds good, they can simply block SMTP Port by default and just open it for legitimate requests

    Thanked by 1TimboJones

    hostEONS.com - Premium Ryzen VPS, Budget SSD KVM and OpenVZ7 VPS in LA, NY, Jacksonville - Florida, Las Vegas, Dalla, Direct Admin LiteSpeed SSD Web Hosting, etc.. Free Blesta License, Direct Admin License, Windows 2019 License and more

  • TheLinuxBugTheLinuxBug Member
    edited March 27

    @jvnadr said: Asking 80$ on top of initial price to reopen it, is a shady practice and shows incapability handling a hosting company on both technical and managing fields...

    Though if they would have turned around and simply discontinued the service, ( maybe refunding / maybe not ) while saying get out by next week, that would be more preferable?

    I think you are arguing one of those damned if your do, damned if you don't cases.

    Did they pick the best way to go about this? No. Could they have offered a much less offensive cost? Sure.

    I will also agree $80 seemed very much excessive. Though, if I am to interpret their intentions from their response, their end goal is likely to discontinue that range of service without outright saying so / doing so. I would think that message should be considered the indirect notification that going forward they would likely be discontinuing that service level / offer. I haven't even looked at this companies page, but just based on the description of things that have occurred in this thread, I would expect that they regret selling that product at the price they did and intend to get out of it and push their higher end products going forward.

    P.S. We all know based on that yearly cost it was a loss leader package.. so keep that in mind when you argue cost. Let's also acknowledge upfront they likely lost money out their ass on it..

    my 2 cents.

    Cheers!

    Have an Allwinner H3 device? Check out H3Droid! | Lichee Pi Zero - The 6$ SBC | #SYSarm - Get It! | Armbian | Atomic Pi Mirror
    22+ Years IT Experience in Linux/Windows Hosting, Administration and Development Services

  • jvnadrjvnadr Member

    @TheLinuxBug said: I think you are arguing one of those damned if your do, damned if you don't cases.

    Indeed, this is one of the cases that there is not a right or wrong opinion about it. I just think that practices like this are shown a hosting company that is either not experienced or not capable to run a solid business (not necessarily on a technical perspective but maybe more on handling the business itself - something equal dangerous).
    When you sell a rock to the bottom service with loss, you do it to gain popularity, client base and reputation. If that was the goal, then, stopping mid-terms the SMTP feature because you was incapable to monitor it and demanding a fee of $80 (!) to re-enable it, admitting that you do that because you had spammers in your network because of the cheappie offer, then, all the goals hitting your own goalpost! Clients leave or getting angry - popularity reduces - reputation being hit.
    I either don;t know them nor did I enter even their homepage to look for them, but if they regret the offer, they had options to handle it better.

    TL/DR I would think twice to sign up for hosting service with a provider that follows this kind of route to reduce damage from an offer he posted.

  • jvnadrjvnadr Member

    @HostEONS said: We ourselves block SMTP Port by default on all our VPS nodes and if a client contacts we open it for that client unless client wants to open SMTP Port for multiple IP then in that case we have to ask more questions

    That would be a fine policy, much more if they followed it from the beginning.

    Thanked by 1HostEONS
  • jsgjsg Member

    @default said:
    Ask Google. They would want it blocked to use only HTTPS in Chrome.

    IF that is true they really are braindead. I doubt it though.

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • defaultdefault Member

    @jsg said:

    @default said:
    Ask Google. They would want it blocked to use only HTTPS in Chrome.

    IF that is true they really are braindead. I doubt it though.

    Me too, and yet...

    https://betanews.com/2021/03/24/google-chrome-90-https-web-browser/

    Fastmako (aff) - another cheap VPS.

  • @javax1 said:

    @TimboJones said: He does need to understand how an industry works to be aware of potential issues

    There is a difference between need and a requirement.

    @TimboJones said: I try, but it is difficult when people use "scam" incorrectly. Worse than being rude. Being called a criminal is way worse than being called an asshole. Jesus Christ.

    I do agree that the word scam is wrong within this context but also it is wrong to assume that he was doing something illegal or that he was part of the problem. If I was affected by port 25 being blocked because of "some users'" actions, I'd refer to it that the provider did not deliver the service as described through the period it was contracted for, so is unreliable. (But this would be me)

    whoosh you just don't understand. It's irrelevant if he was the spammer or not, he'd have lost his account if he was. This is a case of one bad apple ruining the bunch. The provider could no longer provide the service he thought and scaled back features. This happens all the fucking time in the real world with legitimate businesses. This is where the concept of "grandfathering" comes in. Let me know when Microsoft "scams" you when they sell Windows 10 with X feature set and then remove unpopular features that isn't worth the hassles.

    So if the terms were changed on a purchase you made, would you inform the company they're making a mistake and they owe you that service, or would you immediately go calling them a scam? That's my whole fucking point, a reasonable discussion with provider before acting like a silly little cunt.

    If you can't grok this, please step away.

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited March 27

    @default said:

    @jsg said:

    @default said:
    Ask Google. They would want it blocked to use only HTTPS in Chrome.

    IF that is true they really are braindead. I doubt it though.

    Me too, and yet...

    https://betanews.com/2021/03/24/google-chrome-90-https-web-browser/

    Holy reading fail, Batman. Wth did you mean to post because what you linked doesn't block fucking shit. It's a default setting to prefer https over http, that makes absolute fucking sense. Are you anti-Google or just irrational?

    What's your motive, here, or did you really just fail at reading? You're going to lose any credibility if you do stuff like this on purpose.

    Chrome will now default to HTTPS for most typed navigations that don’t specify a protocol

    The Chrome team members further say, “For sites that don’t yet support HTTPS, Chrome will fall back to HTTP when the HTTPS attempt fails (including when there are certificate errors, such as name mismatch or untrusted self-signed certificate, or connection errors, such as DNS resolution failure).

  • defaultdefault Member
    edited March 27

    @TimboJones said:

    @default said:

    @jsg said:

    @default said:
    Ask Google. They would want it blocked to use only HTTPS in Chrome.

    IF that is true they really are braindead. I doubt it though.

    Me too, and yet...

    https://betanews.com/2021/03/24/google-chrome-90-https-web-browser/

    Holy reading fail, Batman. Wth did you mean to post because what you linked doesn't block fucking shit. It's a default setting to prefer https over http, that makes absolute fucking sense. Are you anti-Google or just irrational?

    What's your motive, here, or did you really just fail at reading? You're going to lose any credibility if you do stuff like this on purpose.

    Chrome will now default to HTTPS for most typed navigations that don’t specify a protocol

    The Chrome team members further say, “For sites that don’t yet support HTTPS, Chrome will fall back to HTTP when the HTTPS attempt fails (including when there are certificate errors, such as name mismatch or untrusted self-signed certificate, or connection errors, such as DNS resolution failure).

    I stand by my point. It started with security notifications for HTTP, now HTTPS goes into default, next will be an option to Enable HTTP, and then remove it completely.

    Feel free to think differently, but I stand by my opinion. And yes, I hate Google.

    EDIT: Is this PMS I am experiencing?

    Fastmako (aff) - another cheap VPS.

  • jsgjsg Member
    edited March 28

    Misunderstanding and mix-up. Google and Mozilla provide browsers without payment; browsers access websites. Providers however provide access to servers and for payment, hence as far as feasible they offer what paying customers want with some few exceptions out of necessity, e.g. SMTP because if abused, and it frequently is, it poisons whole IP ranges of provider.

    As for the other issue, "I hate Google", I fully understand you. I do not hate them (do they really deserve my emotions and strong ones at that?) but I avoid them like the pestilence. One reason for that is the fact that they probably are the biggest and worst spammer of all spammers and because they abuse their users as the real product (eyeballs).

    As for the (usually large) corporations and 'sakkurity!!!' noise -> BS and a really big dump of it. The Mozilla gang fired pretty much their whole security department (but payed their useless "CEO" even more) and both of them are preaching day and night 'sakkurity!!!', yet don't care enough to pay a couple of good security engineers to clean up e.g. the TLS mess.

    How do you know that a Google, Mozilla, facebook, twitter, etc. manager lies? Simple: when his/her lips move.

    The problem with democracy is that by definition > 85% of the voters are not particularly intelligent.

  • @default said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @default said:

    @jsg said:

    @default said:
    Ask Google. They would want it blocked to use only HTTPS in Chrome.

    IF that is true they really are braindead. I doubt it though.

    Me too, and yet...

    https://betanews.com/2021/03/24/google-chrome-90-https-web-browser/

    Holy reading fail, Batman. Wth did you mean to post because what you linked doesn't block fucking shit. It's a default setting to prefer https over http, that makes absolute fucking sense. Are you anti-Google or just irrational?

    What's your motive, here, or did you really just fail at reading? You're going to lose any credibility if you do stuff like this on purpose.

    Chrome will now default to HTTPS for most typed navigations that don’t specify a protocol

    The Chrome team members further say, “For sites that don’t yet support HTTPS, Chrome will fall back to HTTP when the HTTPS attempt fails (including when there are certificate errors, such as name mismatch or untrusted self-signed certificate, or connection errors, such as DNS resolution failure).

    I stand by my point. It started with security notifications for HTTP, now HTTPS goes into default, next will be an option to Enable HTTP, and then remove it completely.

    Feel free to think differently, but I stand by my opinion. And yes, I hate Google.

    EDIT: Is this PMS I am experiencing?

    It's fine to state your opinion, just not rewrite what others say and treat it like fact. All kinds of wrong with that. Irrational fear mongering doesn't help anyone and like I said before, hurts credibility.

Sign In or Register to comment.