On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > > The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case someone > > > else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong list > > > quoted.) > > > The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008. > > True. So what? The list Michael posted (which I snipped) shows the old > data collected BEFORE June 2008. > > The link referenced does have the recent stats. The OP does not.
I have very mixed reaction to having name registrars enforce anti-spamming regs and laws. This is kind of like sanctioning a gun shop because someone bought a gun there and used it in a robbery. GoDaddy caught a _lot_ of flack recently for shutting down domain names based on website content, and rightly so, IMHO. This is a very slippery slope. Sanction the operators of the designated name servers, maybe, or the systems which host the accounts which do the spam distribution, but coming down on registrars seems rather big-brotherish. Once a name is registered, it's on the root name servers and all the registrar does is maintain it in their whois database, although they do have the authority to disable a name for which they're the registrar of record. I'm as offended by spam to me and my customers as anyone, but I'm also a big proponent of open source and net neutrality, and like to see pressure applied where the actual functional responsibility for a mis-deed lies. -- Lindsay Haisley | "Everything works | Accredited FMP Computer Services | if you let it" | by the 512-259-1190 | (The Roadie) | Austin Better http://www.fmp.com | | Business Bureau
