Time to forget Ebay?

[Huge]

That's what we used at my previous employers, given that I am an ex-biologist, have a somewhat twisted sense of humour and it was my server room. When we got taken over by {huge multinational} they were most amused by our server names. All changed to boring things like nnst147 now. :o(

BTW, I assume the assembled multitudes know about the various RFCs on the naming of hosts?

more seriously;

{huge multinational} has made most of the mistakes mentioned in the latter one. Like overloading the host names with the country the server is in, even though the DNS contains the country as well. So, where is gbXXXXXX.us.{hugemultinational}.com located? Sigh.)

[Bob Mannix]

As the RFC's say, nnst147 may as well be called 147. We were chastised for calling our four frontline systems john, paul, george and ringo as words like "john" were too common. A sweep of (at the time) DECnet revealed about

12 "orac"s and not a single john (which we pointed out, smugly). We also had cilla, lulu, sandie and dusty (it's an age thing).

dusty crashed catastrophically the week her namesake died ... doo,doo,doo,doo - doo,doo,doo,doo, it's the twilight zone. ;o)

[The Natural Philosopher]

I did an install at a site where only DEAD stars were allowed. Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison, Jones and the like. Presumably they had heard of the above and decided to pre-empt it.

[Huge]

Ahh, but the RFCs also say it isn't a good idea to use numbers...

My home machines are anubis, apophis, horus, (veers from the Egyptian theme) cereberus (it's multi-headed...) and, er, 'box'.

[Huge]

Still causes confusion;

"hendrix is dead" "Well, yes, I know. But what's your problem?"

:o)

[Bob Eager]

"Today we have naming of hosts.."

[Mark]

Last summer I got a £28 CC transaction refunded. I don't know whether it was technically a chargeback. The company in question did not reply to my CC company so they refunded it.

M

[The Natural Philosopher]

Does that mean the root name servers are the 'hosts of hosts'

[Big Bird]

Well at least you shan't stop trying.

[magwitch]

Slightly off topic, but I once got a catalogue for iris's (the plant) the breeder must have been a huge Stones fan as he called the varieties names like Brown Sugar, Moonlight Mile, Paint it Black...

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 14:31:32 on Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mark remarked:

That's a chargeback. There is no "£100 lower limit" on chargebacks.

[Lobster]

So what *is* the well-known 100GBP limit?

David

[Andy Hall]

That's the level at which the Consumer Credit Act kicks in and you have statutory protection as well with the card company being jointly and severably liable with the supplier.

Some card issuers offer purchase protection where, in effect, much of the same mechanisms of chargeback operate for smaller transactions as well.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 08:42:12 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:

Joint liability between the trader and Credit Card Company for things like sale of goods responsibilities. More likely to kick in after a trader has gone broke (so no-one to do a chargeback against).

[Mark]

There is the £100 threshold for the Consumer Credit Act. Items purchased for an amount between £100 and

[John Rumm]

Oh, I did that for a 8 node network in a mobile training suite a few years back - Win2K server dual processor on snow white, and each dwarf was a PIII 750 ;-)

(the vehicle has long since gone, but the rest of the kit still sees daily use apparently)

[Lobster]

Sorry I'm being thick then.... that's what I thought - but in that case, conversely, when does the £100 limit *not* apply, as you indicated would have been the case in my scenario? Maybe I'm asking 'what constitutes a chargeback'?

David

[Andy Hall]

It's the mechanism that the card company uses to reverse out the transaction and may be used as part of a procedure following a complaint. Generally the card companies prefer to do this because it puts the onus on the trader to justify his position or at least to respond - i.e. it's easy for them to do. For the consumer, it's a good first resort before getting into the legal action game. However, the card companies do expect that cardholders behave reasonably.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 18:42:42 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:

A chargeback is what happens when a transaction goes completely bad, and you want your money back (and can justify your reasons to the Credit card company). It often involves cases where the money was taken and

*nothing* delivered (perhaps because the supplier went broke at a vital moment). No lower limit.

The joint liability between supplier and Credit Card Company is more likely to be after something was delivered that wasn't quite right, and you are trying to get some compensation.

[Appin]

The message from Lobster contains these words:

You're not being thick, people are missing the point that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which specified the £100 limit has been affected by the Distance Selling Regulations 2000 which removes that limit and effectively makes the Credit Card Company liable for the lot.