This is for commentary, articles and discussion of anything across Jared's tech network. Since the network has different things, it can all still fit here on the blog.
Sometimes I wonder whether the people sending unsolicited website offers actually visit the sites they want to redesign. On October 16, 2026, I received another example. The subject was “A website idea for jaredrimer.com.” The sender identified himself as Salman and used . He offered to show me a proposed redesign.
Interesting. What exactly is wrong with my website? An inaccessible form? A broken link? A navigation problem? A page that isn’t displaying properly? The email didn’t say. I maintain websites, including resources about Los Angeles Metro meetings and accessibility, and I welcome useful feedback. But “I have a redesign idea” isn’t useful feedback.
Let’s investigate the sender
I checked the email headers and the domain registration. The domain synapseautomations.online was registered August 10, 2026, approximately 67 days before the message, through GoDaddy with registration privacy. The message passed SPF and DKIM authentication, but those checks don’t establish that a marketing offer is credible. SpamAssassin scored it 2.9, below the configured threshold of 5, and the sending IP appeared on a HOSTKARMA blacklist. A listing alone doesn’t prove fraud.
Then I visited the sender’s domain. Instead of a company website, I encountered a GoDaddy parking page saying the domain was parked free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com. I saved a screenshot. A parked domain isn’t proof of criminal activity, and perhaps the sender has a portfolio somewhere else. But you’re offering to redesign my website, and the domain in your own email leads to a parking page? Really? Where am I supposed to examine your work?
The free email accounts are funny, too
Some of these supposedly professional solicitations come from ordinary Gmail, Hotmail, or similar addresses. They’re selling web design, search engine optimization, and technical reports, yet don’t provide a business website where I can investigate their services. A legitimate freelancer can certainly use a free email account. But if you’re selling me an improved online presence, shouldn’t you show me yours? And having a custom domain doesn’t help much if it leads to a parking page.
We’ve been here before
In April 2025, I wrote about an unsolicited offer involving mensvis.com, a domain MENVI didn’t need. I investigated the registration and found a clientHold status. In August 2025, I wrote about those irritating “Re:” emails claiming my websites had unspecified errors and offering reports if I replied. Neither case convinced me to buy anything.
I’ve even replied to one website solicitor and received a technical report. It listed things such as a missing robots.txt file and 404 responses for Mailman-related URLs I didn’t directly control. A missing robots.txt file isn’t automatically a defect, and a 404 isn’t proof that a website needs redesigning. I reviewed the report, saw no convincing reason to purchase the service, and left it there.
And then there was Go IGI. They called me out of the blue offering a website redesign for around $100. When I asked whether they understood accessibility, they said yes. Yet their own website had unlabeled buttons and links, and several phone numbers. I pointed out the problems and gave them time to address them. When they called back and claimed the problems had been fixed, I still encountered the same accessibility issues. If you promise accessible websites, your own site is a reasonable place to demonstrate that expertise.
Different pitches, same need to verify
On November 6, 2020, I wrote about a phishing email claiming my email account was going to be deactivated. That incident ultimately led me to acquire EmailHostSecurity.com and use it as an educational resource. That was phishing. I have not established that Salman’s redesign email is phishing, and I won’t pretend otherwise.
But the common lesson is important. Whether somebody claims your email account is expiring, a domain is in danger, a website has mysterious errors, or a redesign is waiting for you, the question remains: What evidence supports the claim, and why should you trust the sender? An urgent warning or impressive-sounding technical report can persuade people who don’t have the time or experience to investigate.
I make the time to investigate some of these messages because I want to know whether the claims are true. If somebody tells me there’s a problem with my website, I want to know what that problem is and whether there’s any evidence to support it. Sometimes that investigation turns into an article like this one. But I don’t investigate every unsolicited offer. If I don’t have the time or don’t think it’s worth pursuing, I simply delete the message and move on. I’m certainly not obligated to respond to every person who wants to sell me something.
Here’s what useful website feedback looks like
I published another article on October 16, 2026, called “Accessibility Isn’t a Switch: Updates on accessiBe, AudioEye and Metro’s Public Safety Dashboard.” It describes part of an accessibility evaluation I prepared after testing Metro’s Department of Public Safety dashboard with JAWS and VoiceOver.
I didn’t simply declare that the entire dashboard was broken. I described what worked, including headings and some identifiable controls. Then I explained what didn’t work for me: charts that announced categories, dates, and numbers without meaningful relationships; maps that changed visually without adequately communicating the updated information; and selection states that weren’t always clear. I recommended properly structured HTML tables, meaningful announcements, and accessible downloads. I also stated that my testing was not a complete WCAG audit.
That’s actionable feedback. Tell me what page you tested, what happened, what you expected, and what you recommend. A new appearance doesn’t automatically improve accessibility, and a vague sales pitch certainly doesn’t establish expertise.
Another Stupid Fuck Award candidate?
Listeners of The Security Box know that I sometimes give out what I call the Stupid Fuck Award. It’s similar to Rick Dees and his Bonehead Award, or the humorous awards other radio personalities have given out over the years for particularly foolish behavior. My version highlights people or organizations whose actions, decisions, or claims deserve a little public scrutiny and sometimes a good laugh.
This one is a candidate. Somebody offers to redesign my website without identifying a problem, uses a relatively new domain, and when I visit that domain I get a GoDaddy parking page. What could possibly go wrong?
I don’t know whether Salman really made a mockup. I haven’t established that he’s a scammer or that any crime occurred. I don’t need to make those claims. Based on what I could verify, the pitch simply isn’t convincing.
My Metro address also sends an automatic response explaining the website and my related work. Whether the sender read it, I don’t know. But understanding what my website is for would be a reasonable first step before proposing to replace it.
If you want to offer me website services, do your homework. Explain a real problem, show your work, and demonstrate that you understand accessibility. Otherwise don’t be surprised if I investigate you instead of responding to your pitch.
Because apparently the Stupid Fuck Award candidates aren’t going to stop volunteering.
You Want to Redesign My Website, but Where Is Yours?
Sometimes I wonder whether the people sending unsolicited website offers actually visit the sites they want to redesign. On October 16, 2026, I received another example. The subject was “A website idea for jaredrimer.com.” The sender identified himself as Salman and used . He offered to show me a proposed redesign.
Interesting. What exactly is wrong with my website? An inaccessible form? A broken link? A navigation problem? A page that isn’t displaying properly? The email didn’t say. I maintain websites, including resources about Los Angeles Metro meetings and accessibility, and I welcome useful feedback. But “I have a redesign idea” isn’t useful feedback.
Let’s investigate the sender
I checked the email headers and the domain registration. The domain synapseautomations.online was registered August 10, 2026, approximately 67 days before the message, through GoDaddy with registration privacy. The message passed SPF and DKIM authentication, but those checks don’t establish that a marketing offer is credible. SpamAssassin scored it 2.9, below the configured threshold of 5, and the sending IP appeared on a HOSTKARMA blacklist. A listing alone doesn’t prove fraud.
Then I visited the sender’s domain. Instead of a company website, I encountered a GoDaddy parking page saying the domain was parked free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com. I saved a screenshot. A parked domain isn’t proof of criminal activity, and perhaps the sender has a portfolio somewhere else. But you’re offering to redesign my website, and the domain in your own email leads to a parking page? Really? Where am I supposed to examine your work?
The free email accounts are funny, too
Some of these supposedly professional solicitations come from ordinary Gmail, Hotmail, or similar addresses. They’re selling web design, search engine optimization, and technical reports, yet don’t provide a business website where I can investigate their services. A legitimate freelancer can certainly use a free email account. But if you’re selling me an improved online presence, shouldn’t you show me yours? And having a custom domain doesn’t help much if it leads to a parking page.
We’ve been here before
In April 2025, I wrote about an unsolicited offer involving mensvis.com, a domain MENVI didn’t need. I investigated the registration and found a clientHold status. In August 2025, I wrote about those irritating “Re:” emails claiming my websites had unspecified errors and offering reports if I replied. Neither case convinced me to buy anything.
I’ve even replied to one website solicitor and received a technical report. It listed things such as a missing robots.txt file and 404 responses for Mailman-related URLs I didn’t directly control. A missing robots.txt file isn’t automatically a defect, and a 404 isn’t proof that a website needs redesigning. I reviewed the report, saw no convincing reason to purchase the service, and left it there.
And then there was Go IGI. They called me out of the blue offering a website redesign for around $100. When I asked whether they understood accessibility, they said yes. Yet their own website had unlabeled buttons and links, and several phone numbers. I pointed out the problems and gave them time to address them. When they called back and claimed the problems had been fixed, I still encountered the same accessibility issues. If you promise accessible websites, your own site is a reasonable place to demonstrate that expertise.
Different pitches, same need to verify
On November 6, 2020, I wrote about a phishing email claiming my email account was going to be deactivated. That incident ultimately led me to acquire EmailHostSecurity.com and use it as an educational resource. That was phishing. I have not established that Salman’s redesign email is phishing, and I won’t pretend otherwise.
But the common lesson is important. Whether somebody claims your email account is expiring, a domain is in danger, a website has mysterious errors, or a redesign is waiting for you, the question remains: What evidence supports the claim, and why should you trust the sender? An urgent warning or impressive-sounding technical report can persuade people who don’t have the time or experience to investigate.
I make the time to investigate some of these messages because I want to know whether the claims are true. If somebody tells me there’s a problem with my website, I want to know what that problem is and whether there’s any evidence to support it. Sometimes that investigation turns into an article like this one. But I don’t investigate every unsolicited offer. If I don’t have the time or don’t think it’s worth pursuing, I simply delete the message and move on. I’m certainly not obligated to respond to every person who wants to sell me something.
Here’s what useful website feedback looks like
I published another article on October 16, 2026, called “Accessibility Isn’t a Switch: Updates on accessiBe, AudioEye and Metro’s Public Safety Dashboard.” It describes part of an accessibility evaluation I prepared after testing Metro’s Department of Public Safety dashboard with JAWS and VoiceOver.
I didn’t simply declare that the entire dashboard was broken. I described what worked, including headings and some identifiable controls. Then I explained what didn’t work for me: charts that announced categories, dates, and numbers without meaningful relationships; maps that changed visually without adequately communicating the updated information; and selection states that weren’t always clear. I recommended properly structured HTML tables, meaningful announcements, and accessible downloads. I also stated that my testing was not a complete WCAG audit.
That’s actionable feedback. Tell me what page you tested, what happened, what you expected, and what you recommend. A new appearance doesn’t automatically improve accessibility, and a vague sales pitch certainly doesn’t establish expertise.
Another Stupid Fuck Award candidate?
Listeners of The Security Box know that I sometimes give out what I call the Stupid Fuck Award. It’s similar to Rick Dees and his Bonehead Award, or the humorous awards other radio personalities have given out over the years for particularly foolish behavior. My version highlights people or organizations whose actions, decisions, or claims deserve a little public scrutiny and sometimes a good laugh.
This one is a candidate. Somebody offers to redesign my website without identifying a problem, uses a relatively new domain, and when I visit that domain I get a GoDaddy parking page. What could possibly go wrong?
I don’t know whether Salman really made a mockup. I haven’t established that he’s a scammer or that any crime occurred. I don’t need to make those claims. Based on what I could verify, the pitch simply isn’t convincing.
My Metro address also sends an automatic response explaining the website and my related work. Whether the sender read it, I don’t know. But understanding what my website is for would be a reasonable first step before proposing to replace it.
If you want to offer me website services, do your homework. Explain a real problem, show your work, and demonstrate that you understand accessibility. Otherwise don’t be surprised if I investigate you instead of responding to your pitch.
Because apparently the Stupid Fuck Award candidates aren’t going to stop volunteering.
Related reading
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Discover more from Jared's Technology podcast network
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Published in article commentary and musings