View Camera Magazine Domain Suspended

[Gary892]

I have not received my September issue of View Camera Magazine so I went to their website with the intention to email and inquire as to why. I went to http://www.viewcamera.com/ and the only message on page is this domain has been suspended.

First, am I going to the correct website?
Second, has anyone else received their September issue?
Lastly, I am wondering out loud if they are caught up in the financial mess.

I did not post this to cause a flame war or incite angry people but to see if there is a real problem or not.

Gary

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's the correct address. That's all I know.

- Thomas

 

[Andrew Moxom]

:munch: Ruhroh

 

[Barry S]

I got my copy today and it's on the local news stands as well. Probably just a glitch with the web site.

 

[jd callow]

Suspended...?

 

[Terence]

My guess is they forgot to renew payment for the domain name. Not uncommon.

 

[jd callow]

A lapsed domain generally reverts to a corporate placeholder page. This would be the first time I've ever seen a 'suspended' page. Maybe someone at VC got on the wrong side of interNIC.

From someone who gets VC I'm told he had a big announcement on an event that is tentatively happening last June.

 

[eric]

domain name is okay, maybe its a godaddy thing
Domain Name: VIEWCAMERA.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.DNSJUNCTION.COM
Name Server: NS2.DNSJUNCTION.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 04-jun-2007
Creation Date: 27-jun-1996
Expiration Date: 26-jun-2009

 

[jd callow]

domain name is okay, maybe its a godaddy thing

Maybe its something else. One wonders. I have a handful of domains through Godaddy. Godaddy does not post pages like you see here. If you want my guess. I'd guess that Globat Web Hosting (owners of the name servers) decided for whatever reasons (I can think of a few) to suspend VC's hosting. I suspect that someone at VC is scrambling to get the domain moved and that there may be an obstacle or two preventing it from happening as quickly as it does in normal cases (I can think of a couple there as well) .

 

[Mick Fagan]

I received my magazine about 1½ weeks ago, so the latest issue appears to be out and about.

Mick.

 

[photomc]

could be the site got hacked and that is someones idea of a joke (or not)

edit:in the current issue wsa a page that went on about CameraArts becoming an online publication run by VC. May have something to do with that.

 

[rwyoung]

Site seems fine now. Just a glitch I suppose. Maybe they made a typo when filling out the check to pay GoDaddy! Ha! (Sorry Steve, just couldn't resist after finding Chris Rock's picture captioned as Kid Rock).

 

[jd callow]

the site was moved to a new hosting company, which confirms my suspicion that it was not godaddy, but probably a dispute between VC and the hosting company.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Eric Biggerstaff reports that they had exceeded their bandwidth--

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41263

 

[jd callow]

Knot to knit pick, but Eric indicates it was harddrive space not bandwidth (how many people hit the site) that was exceeded. Someone at VC must have really been a jerk to the hosting company or their hosting company were none to professional. If VC had any kind of relationship with the hosting company they would have warned VC many times and given them a chance to update their package or reduce their disk usage. The only times I've seen this kind of behaviour from a hosting company is when the client stopped paying, refused to play by the rules or were the target of a denial of service or similar attack.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Knot to knit pick, but Eric indicates it was harddrive space not bandwidth (how many people hit the site) that was exceeded. Someone at VC must have really been a jerk to the hosting company or their hosting company were none to professional. If VC had any kind of relationship with the hosting company they would have warned VC many times and given them a chance to update their package or reduce their disk usage. The only times I've seen this kind of behaviour from a hosting company is when the client stopped paying, refused to play by the rules or were the target of a denial of service or similar attack.

Boy, that's hard to believe.