Well, perhaps so Joanne. Registrars are bound by the rules laid out by ICANN, and ICANN requires legitimate contact information in the whois database, along with other procedures. The problem with ICANN is that it's pretty well fubar these days and does horrible stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd take money from spammers. I know they're in bed with the major players in the domain name business at the expense of the little folken.
I'm alarmed at some of the stuff GoDaddy did, completely on their own without orders from ICANN. See http://www.nodaddy.com. I don't want the domain name registration system turned into a nanny-state tool. The proper forum through which to lodge complaints against registrars is the ICANN, and ICANN needs to be held accountable for a _lot_ of strange stuff. It's a zoo out there! On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 20:25 -0800, jdow wrote: > From: "Lindsay Haisley" <fmo...@fmp.com> > Sent: Tuesday, 2009, February 17 09:47 > > > > 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, with due respect I think your opinion above is incomplete. > It's correct as far as it goes. > > But once a fertilizer dealer learns that a customer is making bombs > and setting them off in shopping malls I'd expect the dealer to cease > selling to that customer or be indicted as a co-conspirator. > > I would expect the same behavior on the part of YouTube for illegal > videos, Slashdot for illegal content (egregious copyright violation), > and registrars for aiding identified spammers. > > I would expect all those who need to be in the supply path for a > misdeed to work to remove themselves from that supply path upon proper > notification. I would NOT expect them to be proactive in this regard. > Reactive is fine and proper. > > {^_^} Joanne -- 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
