This is the record of things we have said publicly that were not true, what was actually the case, and when each one changed. It is added to and never edited away. Anything we get wrong from here on appears on this page, dated.
Why this page exists
A company with no corrections page has not made no mistakes. It has made roughly the same number as everyone else and has not told you about them. The reason to keep this list in public is that you should be able to check whether we correct ourselves rather than take our word for it, and the only way to make that checkable is to leave the old wording written down beside the new one.
Every entry below was found by us and fixed by us. That is the minimum rather than a virtue. It is included because the alternative, a site whose claims quietly change and whose earlier wording is simply gone, is the exact thing this library is trying not to be.
What counts as one
A revision is not a correction. Rewriting a page, cutting a section, putting an argument a different way: all ordinary, all dated at the foot of the page it happened on, and none of it recorded here. This page is for the narrower and more serious thing, which is that we published something that was not true.
Every entry carries the date it was fixed. An entry without one will not load and the site will not start, which is deliberate: an undated correction cannot be told apart from a quiet rewrite, and a quiet rewrite is what this page exists to prove we do not do.
The log
-
We said backups expired with the data. They did not.
Privacy page. Corrected 10 August 2026.
What we said. That backups expired on the same clock as the data itself.
What was actually true. Enquiry data is deleted at 30 days. The backups holding a copy of it are not gone until 35. Two clocks, five days apart, described as one.
What changed. Both windows are now stated separately and plainly. What was wrong here was the description rather than the behaviour: the five day gap is how backups work, and the fault was in implying there was no gap.
-
Example messages on the home page were presented as real, with sender names.
Home page. Corrected 10 August 2026.
What we said. Three example messages, introduced as three real decisions, each carrying a sender's name.
What was actually true. We wrote those messages ourselves and sent them through the live system. The decisions were genuine. The messages were ours and the names were invented. No customer's enquiry and no member of the public's message was involved at any point.
What changed. They are labelled as ours. This one also broke a rule we had already published on our own methodology page, which says that where we quote a scam it is either one sent to an address of ours or it is reconstructed and labelled as such. The rule was right and the page did not follow it.
-
We said our own addresses ran through JunkGate. They did not.
Contact page. Corrected 10 August 2026.
What we said. That the addresses we publish for people to reach us were themselves protected by JunkGate.
What was actually true. They were not, and as this is written they still are not.
What changed. The claim was removed rather than made true. Removing an untrue sentence takes a minute and making it true does not, and leaving it up in the meantime would have been choosing the flattering version. If it becomes true, it will be said here.
-
The free tier allowed 150 messages while the pricing page promised 200.
Pricing page and the free tier itself. Corrected 10 August 2026.
What we said. That the free tier included 200 messages a month.
What was actually true. The software enforced 150.
What changed. The published figure was honoured. The allowance is 200, as advertised. Where a published promise and the software disagree, the promise is the thing somebody relied on when they chose us, so the software is the thing that moves.
If you find one
Tell us and it will appear here with the date it was fixed, whether or not it is flattering. There is no process to it and nothing to fill in beyond getting in touch.