snubbr.com

GoDaddy reviews : Suggest I try GoDaddy?? McAfee - The Battle Begins

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
For screenshots, take a look at the original article (linked below). MattPress.com Blog Archive McAfee - The Battle Begins Post added at 07:35 AM Previous post was at 07:26 AM Another thank you to Halo Jones for informing me that SiteAdvisor.com lists New.net as a safe website...

Comments (14)

Good Luck...I think this was unfair done to you...

Comment #1

Good luck in sorting it out, sounds a bit of a mess..

Comment #2

Here's the latest update:.

Sent Friday: In response, "Jiju" wrote (on Tuesday, 2:25am central time): The issue remains unresolved. The McAfee representative failed to address the issue in the response...

Comment #3

Just from reading what you wrote, it sounds like you may have acted prematurely.

Allowing them only one day to resolve the issue seems a bit unrealistic.

When you called and threatened legal action, you may have made the situation worse. For a large company, when you start talking legal, then things seem to get more bureaucratic and it may even stop all rational discussion in favor of you just talking to their legal department.

Here's more information on the new.net issue that caused the problem: New.net - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia New.Net.

I can understand not wanting to have your site associated with adware or a bad report from McAfee, however, I think if you waited awhile, their automated testing and resolution process would have panned out...

Comment #4

While "waiting awhile" may work for some websites, EvenOverHere.com is an actual business. The negative listing has resulted in business interruption, loss of business, unnecessary time spent in attempt to resolve the issue, negative reputation, and more.

A couple of key points that you may have missed:No links to New.net have existed for at least 14 months, if ever (the domain name was registered for use by the business in March of 2009) New.net is listed as a safe website on SiteAdvisor.com.

Due to the nature of the situation, waiting for McAfee to recheck the website with their automated scan doesn't seem too practical. That method may have taken another 14+ months, with continued harm caused to the business.

Preparation for proper legal action has been initiated. Additional updates will be posted...

Comment #5

It looks like you have been undfairly treated and that they are lagging behind a long while to retest your site. and if it's shown that their is aproblem, with them pointing out links to another site that were never present, could raise some more issues for other sites in the same problem as you...

Comment #6

Similar issues have been publicized: Yodel Anecdotal Blog Archive Do you know where your mouse has been?.

Take a look at some of the comments...

Comment #7

I had to deal with exactly the same problem a couple of years ago. I believe quick and decisive action is always necessary, since acceptance implies no damage is being done. In my case, the problem was resolved within a few hours - which, I feel, was appropriate. McAfee is running a business, and when they make a public declaration that a site may be harmful, they had better be ready to back it up, or correct it as quickly as possible, or else be liable for damages.

Rich..

Comment #8

I also encountered this problem a while back.

Just as you did, I remained professional and aggressive. The only difference being I had an attorney actually contact McAfee.

Within 24 hours all sites were removed from their block.

I like the concept they have, I don't like the way they block legitimate websites.

If this were to happen to me again, I will probably try to seek monetary gains, on the grounds of lost wages and tarnished image due to libel...

Comment #9

I agree. The only reason, I would not go after damages immediately, is that it would not be clear to me that the damages recovered would be greater than the cost of winning the claim. However, if it persisted, then I would definitely go after damages, big time. McAfee is playing with fire when they claim that they cannot correct the issue immediately. They can, they have, and they must. If they don't, I think that this claim alone could get them in a lot of trouble.

Rich..

Comment #10

Libel is libel. They're falsely accusing businesses and websites of being malicious.

What do you think would happen if I blocked all entrances to my local Wal*Mart and claimed it was harmful to go in, even if it was all a total lie?.

I would be arrested faster then they could get the news crew there!.

It's no different online, they have no right to be blocking peoples access to websites.

Now, if the USER chooses to block a certain website, or set parental controls, that's one thing.

BUT! I never told McAfee to block my DJIA & NASDAQ blog! They just went ahead and blocked millions of people on their own.

It would have been nice of them to at least contact me first.

If were the OP, I'd stop talking, and start doing. Don't threaten legal action and then sit back and watch what happens, have your lawyer contact them; I don't care how big they are, it's the only tool you've got that can compete...

Comment #11

I stand humbly corrected Looks like this McAfee issue is bigger than I originally understood.

Best of luck to you getting it all resolved...

Comment #12

Good news.

The issue appears to be resolved. Although it appeared as though McAfee would remain uncooperative, the site has been marked as safe. The entire ordeal lasted about 1 week, although more than enough damage was caused during the months that the site was listed as malicious...

Comment #13

Surely you see a difference between your blocking WalMart for all potential customers, and McAffee blocking visitors who requested that McAffee's software be placed on the visitors' computers? Your analogy would *almost* work if you were a minister of a church that had a problem with the salaciously short skirts that WalMart sells for children, and you stopped every member of your congregation who attempted to go in, rather than every member of the general public.

Even still - if the OP did seek representation before this (apparently) resolved amicably, I can't imagine he'd be too thrilled with the course of action that led up to his being retained...

Comment #14


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.