Hashemian Blog
Web Tools, Financial Markets, Technology
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Mortgage Scam Mail
There's yet another hidden danger in spam that occurred to me today after receiving my umpteenth mortgage refinance junk letter in the mail. So much information on the dangers of online scams (be it in the form of spam, phishing, or other types) has been disseminated that most people now treat online come-ons with some caution.
Unfortunately it is possible that all the attention to online fraud has shifted the focus away from mail fraud. You know, the kind of junk we all receive in our mailboxes everyday. I'm afraid that people may be letting their guards down and may be becoming more trusting of what they receive in their mailboxes.
With a recent drop in mortgage rates coupled with recent stagnation of the housing market and the end of fixed terms for many interest-only mortgages, mortgage companies have been on the prowl for new business. That may explain the flurry of letters we now receive inviting us to refinance our existing mortgages to lower rates.
The refinancing invitations are not new phenomenon. They've been around for years, but the timing to snag unsuspecting homeowners may be just right. The junk mail letters come in all shapes and sizes, but they have one interesting characteristic in common. They all have the appearance to be from the actual mortgage company that the homeowner does business with and that could dupe the homeowner into believing that the letters are legitimate correspondence form their mortgage company.
Most of them highlight the name of the mortgage company in large fonts and try hard to divert attention from the fact that the letter is from a totally unrelated company offering to refinance the existing mortgage. The small print (also known as mouse print) says it all. It usually states that the mortgage information was culled form public records and the sender is not associated or affiliated with the homeowner's actual mortgage company.
Perhaps it's a bit harsh to judge all these letters as scam, and this practice might not be illegal, but people should be aware that any company that tries so hard to hide its identity, while impersonating the homeowner's present mortgage company on the front, is being deceptive and their letter deserves a swift trip to the trash can. They are as bad as any refinancing spam they receive via email.
mortgage,refinance,spam,scam,mail fraud,junk mail <Mortgage Scam Mail>
// posted by rh
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Windows XP printer sharing
We have a network of three XP PC's at home and one laser printer that's connected to my PC over the LPT1 parallel port. My wife is a heavy printer user, so every time she wanted to print a document, she had to attach it to an email, retrieve it from my PC and then print it. Tonight she finally asked me to hook up her PC to the printer too so she could print directly from her PC.
Printer sharing is supposed to be an easy task. You set up a network, share the printer on the node that has the printer physically connected, and you're finished. Easier said than done. If my PC is PC1 and hers is PC2, first I had to share the printer on PC1. Then on PC2 I'd choose "Add Printer" from the "Printers and Faxes" window and click on the Network printer and specify \\PC1\hp. At that point I get an account verification popup where I have to supply my account name and password on PC1 and save the password. That works, but because my account has admin privileges, that means that PC2 would have unfettered access to all the resources to PC1. For example running the command \\PC1\c$ on PC2 would give full access to all PC1 files. That's not a big issue at my home, but this doesn't seem right. There was a perfectly fine user account on PC1 that could have been used instead to set this up, but every time I entered the credentials, XP refused to add the printer to PC2.
This is one of those problems I had dealt with in the past, but had forgotten how I had resolved it then. Finally, after a few rounds, I remembered the solution. The user account I was using on PC1 had a blank password and that just doesn't sit well with Windows when trying to access PC1 shares using a password-less credential. In fact an account on a PC can access the shared resources on another PC, over the same network, without providing any credentials if the account name and passwords match. Unless the accounts have blank passwords. Once I assigned a password to the user account on PC1 and specified that password when adding the printer on PC2, everything worked as expected and I was able to easily print from PC2. Of course I had to make sure that the firewall and local area settings for the PC's were configured correctly as well.
I suspect some registry setting somewhere in the bowels of Windows XP can change this behavior to allow for password-less accounts to work, but why do users have to be shackled by these absurd rules? I'm sure Microsoft did it for our own good. What would the poor users do without Windows guarding them every step of the way?
xp,windows xp,printers,printer sharing <Windows XP printer sharing>
// posted by rh
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Jesus Spam
Most of the spam unleashed on mailboxes are initiated using a mail server cranking out emails in bulk. The more sophisticated ones use crude mail-merging techniques to insert the victim's name and perhaps slightly change the content or headers of the emails in an effort to elude junk mail detectors. It's old news. Cheap Viagra, eBay account suspension, Citibank alert, Nigerian money laundering scheme, etc., etc.
It sounds crazy, but spam does have its positive side. Junk emails sometimes make for amusing reading. Occasionally when I feel the need for a little entertainment, I scan my junk mail folder and read a few that have catchy titles. Tonight, I happened on the following, and by the looks of it, it appears that it was targeted for me. Here it goes:
FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF MR. ROBERT HASHEMIAN
DEAR SIR AND RESPECTED GENTLEMEN
IF YOU TRUST INALMIGHTY LORD AND WELFARE FOR COMMUNITIES, THEN JUST DONATE 10 US $ CHARITY TO E-GOLD ACCOUNT [URL Deleted].
AN PROMISE TO RETURN 50 US $ TO YOU AFTER 1 YEAR WITH 10 US $ DEPOSITED TO CHARITY FUND IN YOUR NAME
IF U ARE TRUE LOVER OF JESUS CHRIST AS MESSENGER OF ALMIGHTY LORD, DO IT AND ENCOURAGE UR FRIENDS.
REGARDS
[Fake Name Deleted]
P/s. MOST IMPORTANT - I SAW A PAYPAL DONATE BUTTON TO MAKE YOUR WEBSITE DO THE BEST. I HAVE A SOUND AND RIGHT PROPOSAL. I WILL USE YOUR SITE GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE WITH MOST FASCINATING KEYWORDS AND VISIT THEIR LINKS WHICH COULD GENERATE ATLEAST 3000 US $ FUNDS EVERY MONTH. IF YOU WISH ME TO DO THAT, I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY ARRANGE TO GIVE AN 1000 US $ AS TRUST MONEY TO START MYDEDICATED SUPPORT TO BUILTUP FUNDS AND WE SHARE AS PER YOUR NEEDS AND DESIRES WITH JUST 35 % COMING TO ME - PLEASE INFORM YOUR INTEREST – REGARDS
Wow, what a coincidence. Jesus just revealed himself to me in an email. He was so touched by your message that he told me to ask you to use that Paypal button on my site to send me all your money. No need to stress your little fingers clicking on the Google ads for me. In return, I will pray that Jesus Christ would make you the wealthiest man on Earth and save your soul. Also encourage your friends to do the same. I'll pray for them too. Promise!
spam,junk mail,jesus,e-gold,paypal <Jesus Spam>
// posted by rh
Sunday, September 17, 2006
More evil than spammers
About 2½ years ago I wrote an entry in my blog about the growing power of anti-spam outfits. I'm no fan of spammers, but when I see vigilantism, it alarms me even more than the problem it tries to correct. Vigilantes always act altruistic, but their intentions are often sinister. Generally all one needs to do to uncover their real goals is to follow the money. Sometimes it's not so obvious, but the telltale signs are there.
Now one of these guys, Spamhaus, has been successfully sued in an Illinois court. Here's the scoop. Anti-spam companies publish lists of offending domains and Internet addresses in what are known as black lists (also known as RBL for Real-time Black Lists). The list is supposed to be compiled using means such as complaints by people and decoy mailbox captures. People who manage mail servers can subscribe to these lists, thereby allowing the mail servers to identify and tag messages originating from servers in blacklists. Operators can then set up automatic procedures to deal with such emails, such as having them deleted, sent to spam folders, or alter their subject lines for users to recognize them quickly.
You might ask: "what's wrong with that?" On the surface, nothing, until you begin to consider what happens if a critical mass of servers on the Internet subscribed to these lists. What happens if a black-list operator adds a perfectly innocent domain or address to its list out of vendetta or spite. Suddenly all emails from such organization will stop flowing and their business could be paralyzed. That's way too much power to be given to someone without any accountability.
Look at what's happened in this case. The court has ruled against Spamhaus, yet they arrogantly refuse to stand down or even acknowledge their strong-arm tactics. I don't know much about the plaintiff in this case. Maybe they were spammers, but what angers me is the utter disrespect and scorn Spamhaus has for law and order. The only law they accept is their own. Perhaps Spamhaus has helped to hinder a few real spammers, but on some level they are even worse that the spammers they are supposedly battling.
*Note: My position vis-à-vis black-list operators is completely impartial. I have never sent a piece of spam, nor has my site ever landed in any black lists.
spam,spamhaus,spammers,black lists,rbl <More evil than spammers>
// posted by rh
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Cashback credit card
I know I am just a pawn in the credit card game whose real beneficiaries are the banks and card companies that make outsized profits off the backs of consumers and merchants alike. At least I can feel good about having a no-fee cashback card that rewards me for my spending. Some false comfort.
Let's just break it down. Credit card companies charge merchants fees for every transaction. In turn merchants mark up their prices to cover their costs and everyone ends up paying more for the bit of convenience, including people who don't or can't have a credit card. A lucky few with reward cards, may get a bone tossed at them once in a while.
The institutions also make serious money from those who carry balances on their cards. It's a perfect racket and since new bankruptcy laws make debt forgiveness almost impossible, the money keeps on rolling in.
The reward system is one way card companies buy the loyalty of their customers by the cheap, but a recent experience with my Citibank cashback reward card left me wondering whether the perk, if you can call it that, comes at the expense of customer service.
The Citibank cashback reward process is pretty straightforward. Charge up your purchases, the card will kick 1% or so of the purchases back to you up to the maximum of $300 annually. Okay so far, but here's where the process gets silly. You can request a cashback check when your balance reaches $50 or more. Why should I request this money? Can't they just credit my account automatically when my balance reaches $50? Even if for some reason I had to request the reward (probably to cross sell me when I contact them), why do I have to wait for a check in the mail?
I decided to put that question to Citicard on their online customer service page. Here's what I wrote:
hi, can you offer a way to apply the cashback to the card balance? seems that this would be beneficial to you too. no checks to issue, no possible lost checks to track, and the money recycles back to you quick. less work for both sides. is this really so hard to implement? thanks.
And this is what I got back:
Customer Service Wrote:
We are unable to apply your cash back as payments on your account.
Thank you for using our website.
This is really a type of answer you would expect from a software engineer with some deficit in customer interface skills. Someone like myself. The answer is terse, unhelpful, and rather blunt. My reaction was, "Why did I even bother?" Obviously they know the process is asinine and they're not going to do anything about it. Yep, I'll be waiting by the mailbox for my next cashback check.
credit cards,cashback,cashback reward,citibank,citicards,customer service <Cashback credit card>
// posted by rh
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Morbid Running
After running a half marathon last year, I didn't think I'd do it again, even though I had the intention. But here I am, registered to run another one on October 1st. I'm not really sure if I can finish this one, let alone beating my last year's time. What the hell, it's worth a try for a mere $20 entry fee and an early wake-up on Sunday.
I had never attempted a race until last year when I ran my first half marathon. I wasn’t so sure I could finish that one either, but I finished in a relatively decent shape. I'm not much into training and regiments. My diet and other habits remain the same regardless of the upcoming event. The only reason I went for the half marathon last year was to see if I could plain do it. I had started to cover 8 and 10-mile distances and the longest I went prior to the race was just under 12 miles, so while skeptical, I knew I had the chance to complete the half marathon. This year, however, I'm not even trying for long distances. My longest jogs have generally been in the 4 to 5-mile ranges and as usual I never bother timing myself. It'll be interesting to see how I fare with 13.1 miles.
What has been interesting about my jogging route recently are the two adjacent cemeteries that I run through towards the end of my course. I must say that cemeteries make the best jogging routes. I do have a dark side, so running through graveyards fits my profile pretty well. The ones I run trough are calm and serene. There are the occasional birds and crickets and the inhabitants are rather quiet and peaceful. Dead people, after all, are the most inoffensive of people.
As the days grow shorter, I generally find myself jogging in the dark and I must admit that going through the the cemeteries tonight had a spooky feeling. I wonder why, but I couldn't help thinking about scenes from the night of the living dead movie. Thankfully I wasn't accosted by any zombies or ghosts, but as I looked upon the eerie landscape, surrounded by tombstones, I wondered how I would react if I were to run into a few unpleasant surprises. Well, maybe that's just the training I need to quicken my pace and get out of the morbid land as fast as possible. One never knows.
jogging,running,marathon,half marathon,cemeteries <Morbid Running>
// posted by rh
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Crocodile Hunter
Liked him or not, Steve Irwin made a big impression on anyone that watched his programs. Some deemed him insanely out of control as he wrestled with crocodiles, and tangled with snakes. Others would call him fearless and a defender of the animal kingdom.
I hadn't seen his programs in years, but hearing the news of his death at a relatively young age saddened me. To me he was a spokesperson for the creatures who didn't have a way to communicate with the humans, the real threats to ecology. He came across as brash, but his honest and sincere love and respect for the animals were always evident in his words and actions.
No, he didn't teach me to love crocodiles, snakes, or sharks, but watching him interact with these ferocious creatures, taught me to respect them and view them as a necessary part of our planet that should be preserved and left alone to carry out their intended functions.
While his death is sad, it is noteworthy that he had a big positive impact on many humans and animals alike. He died doing what he loved and left this world admired by millions. Surely, there aren't too many people that can achieve that kind of distinction. The animal kingdom has lost one of its greatest advocates, and his boots won't be easy to fill.
crocodile hunter,steve irwin <Crocodile Hunter>
// posted by rh
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Meta Tags
Meta tags are one of those rather mysterious and arcane HTML elements of a Web page. It also doesn't help that they remain invisible to users, so in most cases no one even knows they were there. One of the principle issues with meta tags is the lack of standard usage. Generally there is no right or wrong way to declare them, so it becomes a confusing matter to many Web designers. In most cases page designers just relegate the task to the product they use to create the pages and leave it at that.
Meta tags may not get much respect, but in fact do have a certain amount of importance. Going by strict interpretation, a page's meta tag is description of that page. It is not meant to be a part of the page content, instead it is an addition to the page describing the content. For example, the Description meta tag is generally meant to provide a synopsis for the page, such as:
<meta name="Description" content="Care and feeding of purple-fin polar fish in an aquarium">
The Keywords meta tag on the other hand would contain important keywords used in the Web page, much like an index. For example:
<meta name="Keywords" content="purple-fin, polar fish, aquarium">
This type of meta tag which generally consists of a name and content sections, is what I would call a descriptive meta tag. Other descriptive meta tags could contain copyright information, author's names, or disclaimers. In other words, descriptive meta tags can be anything you want to convey about the page. It is up to the client side (such as a browser or a spider) to understand and digest them.
In recent years, descriptive meta tags have gained some attention as an SEO (search engine optimization) tool. The idea is that while a search engine robot is crawling a site, the meta tags can help the search engine better categorize and catalogue the pages, possibly helping it achieve better ranking. The fact is that some search engines may give a cursory attention to the descriptive meta tags, but many, such as Google, are rumored to be ignoring them altogether due to excessive abuse by search engine spammers. However, it is possible that descriptive meta tags that attempt to fool search engines, might actually damage the page's ranking or get it banned completely.
The other class of meta tags is what I would call instructive meta tags. These meta tags are used to instruct the browser to take an action, much like instructions sent by a Web server via HTTP headers. They are useful for occasions when a page designer does not have access to the server configuration, or the know-how to make the changes at the server level. Instead these meta tags are used to simulate instructions or information sent by the server in the header area. These are the http-equiv class used for purposes such as caching, MIME declarations, robot instructions, or redirections. For example the meta tag:
<meta http-equiv=refresh content="10; url=http://www.example.com/">
Instructs the browser to redirect to the specified URL after 10 seconds.
The meta tags of a Web page can be viewed by simply inspecting the HTML source of that page, generally by clicking on "View Source" from a browser's menu. They are usually found embedded in the <head> section of a Web page. There are also online tools available that can extract the meta tags from a Web page and display them in a concise manner. One such tool can be found at:
www.hashemian.com/tools/browser-simulator.htm .
meta tags,html,http,seo,http-equiv,search engines,page ranking <Meta Tags>
// posted by rh
|
Links
Technorati Profile
TMCnet.com
ARCHIVES
09/01/2003 - 10/01/200303/01/2004 - 04/01/200404/01/2004 - 05/01/200405/01/2004 - 06/01/200406/01/2004 - 07/01/200407/01/2004 - 08/01/200408/01/2004 - 09/01/200409/01/2004 - 10/01/200410/01/2004 - 11/01/200411/01/2004 - 12/01/200412/01/2004 - 01/01/200501/01/2005 - 02/01/200502/01/2005 - 03/01/200503/01/2005 - 04/01/200504/01/2005 - 05/01/200505/01/2005 - 06/01/200506/01/2005 - 07/01/200507/01/2005 - 08/01/200508/01/2005 - 09/01/200509/01/2005 - 10/01/200510/01/2005 - 11/01/200511/01/2005 - 12/01/200512/01/2005 - 01/01/200601/01/2006 - 02/01/200602/01/2006 - 03/01/200603/01/2006 - 04/01/200604/01/2006 - 05/01/200605/01/2006 - 06/01/200606/01/2006 - 07/01/200607/01/2006 - 08/01/200608/01/2006 - 09/01/200609/01/2006 - 10/01/200610/01/2006 - 11/01/200611/01/2006 - 12/01/200612/01/2006 - 01/01/200701/01/2007 - 02/01/200702/01/2007 - 03/01/200703/01/2007 - 04/01/200704/01/2007 - 05/01/200705/01/2007 - 06/01/200706/01/2007 - 07/01/200707/01/2007 - 08/01/200708/01/2007 - 09/01/200709/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
|
