Sponsored by..

Monday, 18 January 2010

Is Q-dating.com a fake?


At first this looks like some random spam:

Subject: Find a sexdate - Free registration!
From: "Q-dating" <info@qdates.net>
Date: Mon, January 18, 2010 3:19 pm

Having trouble reading this email?

FIND A SEXDATE IN YOUR OWN AREA?

www.Q-Dating.com
[http://mailings.email-pro.net/link.php?M=000&N=143&L=118&F=T]

Chantal 24 jaaronline

Single, searching for sexdate!
I'm not ready to settle down
and looking for a sexbuddy
Irene 34 jaaronline

Married, looking for date.
I am a loving wife of 34 years looking for a nice man.
The best dating site of the UK. Advanced searching, Instant chat, test it
now FREE! Click here

Click here to unsubscribe
[http://mailings.email-pro.net/unsubscribe.php?M=000&C=00000&L=7&N=143]
After a bit of "wtf" I decided to check out the WHOIS details to see who was spamming:

Company: Realcom Limited
Name: Andy Ling
Address: 33, Throgmorton street
City: LONDON
Country: UNITED KINGDOM
Postal Code: EC2N 2BR
Phone: +44 7937 082 210
Fax:
Email: realcomltd@hotmail.com
Oh, well that's kind interesting.. they appear to be based in the UK. A quick check at Companies House does come up with a Realcom Ltd.. but it's a wholly innocent and unconnected company in Oxfordshire.

There's not much of a web presence about from this Dutch-language review [autotranslated] which also complains that the site is a fake and that unauthorised credit card transactions have been made.

A bit of searching around finds some related domains:
Q-dating.com [94.229.169.102]
Q-dating.eu [78.109.162.121]
Qdates.net [78.109.162.122]
Q-dating.be [78.109.162.119]
Q-dating.de [78.109.162.119]
Q-dating.net [78.109.162.119]
Credifact.net [94.229.169.102]
Megacasting.eu [94.229.169.102]
Email-pro.net [Parked].. mailings.email-pro.net is on 78.109.162.119

All infrastructure is supplied by UKFast (abuse -at- ukfast.co.uk)

There are plenty of other dating sites to choose from.. some of them may even be genuine. But given the complaints and the questionable WHOIS details, then probably best to avoid this one.

No comments: