Its happening again (Host Error)

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, howardang said:

Like many others, I use other forums and similar, and I do not experience the same issues, either instability unnecessary comlication or downtime, all of which which has happened on this site. I am obviously aware that the site is run by someone who works for nothing, but I find it difficult to come to terms with accepting this as an excuse for a mediocre service, especially for a site that has a large number of members. This is especially relevant if there may be a danger of insecurity for the members.

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that the site has a 'large number of ACTIVE members'

I'd guess it is only in the 'hundreds'.

[MtB]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

I'm not sure that the site has a 'large number of ACTIVE members'

I'd guess it is only in the 'hundreds'.

 

Depends how you define 'active member'.

 

If you mean say, members posting on average at least once each day, I be the active member count is only in double figures. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Depends how you define 'active member'.

 

If you mean say, members posting on average at least once each day, I be the active member count is only in double figures. 

I was using the same criteria as the other forum I use - "Post at least once per week"

 

I have no idea if it is typical, but they have approx. 5% of the membership as being 'active'

 

IF that was carried over to CWDF that would mean there were about 150 'active' members

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I was using the same criteria as the other forum I use - "Post at least once per week"

 

 

That's a tricky definition. Anyone failing to post in any given week immediately ceases in perpetuity to be an 'active member'.

 

 

[howardang]

Very interesting but a tad academic! Why not stick to the relevant points about the site inadequacies?

 

Howard

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, howardang said:

Very interesting but a tad academic! Why not stick to the relevant points about the site inadequacies?

 

Howard

 

Because we've had our say about it and moved on. Maybe you should too.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, howardang said:

Very interesting but a tad academic! Why not stick to the relevant points about the site inadequacies?

 

Howard

Sorry.

 

I was simply pointing out that the perception is that this is a 'big busy' forum, but compared to other for a it is actually small but seems to have far more than its share or problems.

 

When asked 'why does it do this' the answer is 'because that's the standard forum set up and we don't want to go down the route of having to modify / personalise it and cause more problems'

 

Whilst Rich responds as quickly as he can and does an excellent job, his (and our lives) would be so much more pleasant if the forum used more robust software.

 

Another forum which I use uses this software :

 

https://xenforo.com/purchase/

 

I'm not overly impressed with it but it seems stable.

It also has the ability to be come a 'full member' on payment of £'s.

The normal discussion threads are FoC and accessible to 'members' but then other sections are only open to Full Members.

Maybe that's a possible solution to getting extra cash in to pay for better software ?

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[howardang]

40 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Because we've had our say about it and moved on. Maybe you should too.

 

 

Fair enough, it was only a passing comment. 

 

Howard

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

??????? Active Members

About ten ... they scare off the newbies and the sensible ones.

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Depends how you define 'active member'.

 

Tumescent ...

[Rambling Boater]

Interestingly I have never seen the error when the browser is in private mode and not logged in. Maybe it's related to our IP address or logged in status.

[mrsmelly]

As a dinosaur re pooter stuff what do members mean when they say there could be risks to members security etc??? Can people nip down my wi fi and murder me? What could happen? 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

As a dinosaur re pooter stuff what do members mean when they say there could be risks to members security etc??? Can people nip down my wi fi and murder me? What could happen? 

 

Just one example :

 

Do you use internet banking ?

 

No one can access you money just by knowing your bank account number can they ?

 

No say Jeremy Clarkson ……………………….. but :

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jan/07/personalfinancenews.scamsandfraud

Edited February 22, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

31 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

As a dinosaur re pooter stuff what do members mean when they say there could be risks to members security etc??? Can people nip down my wi fi and murder me? What could happen? 

 

Bad stuff can happen, but mostly just financial. Consider this:

 

1) For simplicity, you use the same password for everything.

2) Screwfix Direct computers get hacked. No big deal eh? 

3) Now the hackers know your Screwfix username and password. 

4) Still no big deal eh?

5) The set their own software running to test your username and password combination on thousands of websites.

6) Bingo, they logged into your Amazon account. 

7) Still no big deal eh?

8 ) Turned out they managed to log into your email too.

9) Still no big deal eh? 

10) They use your email to change your delivery address at Amazon.

11) They order a LOAD of expensive stuff on your credit card delivered to a drop address. 

12) YOU have to deal with the fallout, and convince everyone it was not you.

 

Just an example, other stuff can happen.

 

E.G. someone could log into your account on here and start posting loads of pro-brexit tosh pretending to be you.

 

Oh..... ?

 

 

[restlessnomad]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just one example :

 

Do you use internet banking ?

 

No one can access you money just by knowing your bank account number can they ?

 

No say Jeremy Clarkson ……………………….. but :

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jan/07/personalfinancenews.scamsandfraud

it shows a weakness in direct debit system which does not ask your authorization before setting it up. Jeremy will get the full money back under the direct debit guarantee if he complains, also he must have got a letter about direct debit(both are annoying to keep track of). However direct debit can only be set up for specific vetted companies, not some random company.

 

Here is another one long overdue(name check for bank transfer), I find it scary that I can inadvertently send money to wrong account just by mis typing number.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45900955

 

[Keeping Up]

4 hours ago, restlessnomad said:

it shows a weakness in direct debit system which does not ask your authorization before setting it up. Jeremy will get the full money back under the direct debit guarantee if he complains, also he must have got a letter about direct debit(both are annoying to keep track of). However direct debit can only be set up for specific vetted companies, not some random company.

 

Not necessarily. When I had a spate of unauthorised direct debits set up against my account, my bank told me that the Direct Debit Guarantee applied only to authorised Direct Debits. They refused to refund me the lost money  and refused to block the continuing stream of further DD requests from a stream of different companies. They told me that I would need to take legal action personally to try to recover monies from the perpetrators, and that it was my own responsibility to check my account daily to check for any new DDs, because then I could cancel them that evening before any money left my account. When I asked them about their vetting process they said that only individuals are vetted, all registered companies are automatically assumed to be authorised to set up DDs.

 

I switched to a different bank.

[Richard10002]

17 minutes ago, Keeping Up said:

Not necessarily. When I had a spate of unauthorised direct debits set up against my account, my bank told me that the Direct Debit Guarantee applied only to authorised Direct Debits. They refused to refund me the lost money  and refused to block the continuing stream of further DD requests from a stream of different companies. They told me that I would need to take legal action personally to try to recover monies from the perpetrators, and that it was my own responsibility to check my account daily to check for any new DDs, because then I could cancel them that evening before any money left my account. When I asked them about their vetting process they said that only individuals are vetted, all registered companies are automatically assumed to be authorised to set up DDs.

 

I switched to a different bank.

I think a lot of banks behave/behaved like this. However, I'm pretty sure that the Direct Debit guarantee means that they have to give you back any money that "you" say should not have been taken. I'm going back some years but I recall that, if pushed to the point of legal action, banks changed their stance.

 

Given that your bank assumed that all registered companies are authorised to set up DDs, presumably they accepted that all of these DDs were "authorised". I think they dug their own hole with their weasly words, but many people give up in the face of something authoritative.

 

Despicable behaviour, but not untypical of banks, IMHO.

[Richard10002]

https://www.directdebit.co.uk/DirectDebitExplained/Pages/Makingpayments.aspx

 

Step 3 - Check the advance notice details

The organisation will give you advance notice of collection dates and amounts, whether you set up a Direct Debit by telephone, internet or using a paper form. Check these details are correct and contact them straight away if you want to query anything.

Step 4 - Relax

Apart from making sure you've enough money in your account when payment is due, there's nothing more you have to do. Just keep an eye on your bank statement to check that the Direct Debits are being made as agreed.

 

https://www.directdebit.co.uk/DirectDebitExplained/Pages/Organisationunknown.aspx

 

and so on.

[Murflynn]

It is possible to inadvertently set up a continuous payment direct debit or credit card arrangement with scam companies.

 

You order a free sample of something on-line using a card, and you do not notice that by doing so you have agreed to the (very one-sided) T&C's (which most folk don't bother to read). 

In fact you have agreed to receive monthly supplies of the goods at a price to be determined by the supplier, and the nature of the agreement is that you cannot cancel the contract - only the vendor can do that, and only after you have contacted them by phone on a specified date related to the repeat supply date.

When you receive the sample of the (rubbish) goods you decide not to buy any more. 

Then when you receive another (tiny) consignment of the goods a month later you check (if you are wise) your card statement and are amazed that you have spent a small fortune on stuff sent from an unidentified vendor in Singapore (in SWMBO's case).

In her case the bank (M&S) started a co-operating banks' procedure where they could cancel the arrangement and request a refund - the cancellation took place but not the refund.

 

According to Money Saving Expert, The Financial Conduct Authority says: You have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it you have stopped permission for the payments. Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.  However it appears that this does not apply to the purchase of goods or services.

 

 

Be warned.

[RichM]

The monitoring systems have not picked up on this but this could be because it seems to be sporadic and not affecting all users. The logs on the server do not provide any explanation either though I'm aware our hosting provider has had some issues in the past week which may have affected our firewall but presents no security risk. 

 

Please let me know if anyone encounters this issue again after 18:00 today and I will investigate further though due to commitments outside of Canal World it may take me longer to get to it. Due to this, I will be standing down from my voluntary role here shortly but will be around until someone else is recruited.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by RichM

[restlessnomad]

3 hours ago, Keeping Up said:

Not necessarily. When I had a spate of unauthorised direct debits set up against my account, my bank told me that the Direct Debit Guarantee applied only to authorised Direct Debits. They refused to refund me the lost money  and refused to block the continuing stream of further DD requests from a stream of different companies. They told me that I would need to take legal action personally to try to recover monies from the perpetrators, and that it was my own responsibility to check my account daily to check for any new DDs, because then I could cancel them that evening before any money left my account. When I asked them about their vetting process they said that only individuals are vetted, all registered companies are automatically assumed to be authorised to set up DDs.

 

I switched to a different bank.

I stand corrected.. may I know which bank you used?(that refused to refund)

Edited February 22, 2020 by restlessnomad

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, RichM said:

The monitoring systems have not picked up on this but this could be because it seems to be sporadic and not affecting all users. The logs on the server do not provide any explanation either though I'm aware our hosting provider has had some issues in the past week which may have affected our firewall but presents no security risk. 

 

Please let me know if anyone encounters this issue again after 18:00 today and I will investigate further though due to commitments outside of Canal World it may take me longer to get to it. Due to this, I will be standing down from my voluntary role here shortly but will be around until someone else is recruited.

 

 

 

 

I am not suprised you are standing down after the recent spatt of moaning from some quarters who fail to understand you do this role for nowt and its a thankless task. Anyway thanks for all you have done in the role. I feel I must add that it was not this particular thread you received the Flack on but members on a different thread. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by mrsmelly

[Keeping Up]

28 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

I stand corrected.. may I know which bank you used?(that refused to refund)

Yes that was the Co-Op Bank. I switched to Tesco and, to my amazement, when I told them what had happened THEY refunded it to me and said that they would argue it out with the Co-Op later. For 12 months after that the Co-Op continued to forward the DD requests to Tesco saying they were "pre-authorised" but Tesco were happy to implement a complete ban on the requests.

 

5 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I am not suprised you are standing down after the recent spatt of moaning from some quarters who fail to understand you do this role for nowt and its a thankless task. Anyway thanks for all you have done in the role. 

Seconded !!!

[Rob-M]

1 hour ago, RichM said:

The monitoring systems have not picked up on this but this could be because it seems to be sporadic and not affecting all users. The logs on the server do not provide any explanation either though I'm aware our hosting provider has had some issues in the past week which may have affected our firewall but presents no security risk. 

 

Please let me know if anyone encounters this issue again after 18:00 today and I will investigate further though due to commitments outside of Canal World it may take me longer to get to it. Due to this, I will be standing down from my voluntary role here shortly but will be around until someone else is recruited.

 

 

 

 

I hope Dan is able to find someone else willing to give up so much of their time to support the site for nothing.  I know what it is like to manage IT systems and  the amount of time it can consume.

Thanks for your efforts in keeping the site running and trying hard to improve performance whilst reducing costs.

 

[bizzard]

28 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I am not suprised you are standing down after the recent spatt of moaning from some quarters who fail to understand you do this role for nowt and its a thankless task. Anyway thanks for all you have done in the role. I feel I must add that it was not this particular thread you received the Flack on but members on a different thread. 

HEAR, HEAR!!!!

[Tony Brooks]

From me too.