×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN Asked To Shut Down "Worst" Chinese Registrar

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the pictogram-for-spam dept.

Spam 119

Ian Lamont writes "Anti-spam service Knujon has released reports highlighting how certain registrars in the US and abroad have consistently failed to live up to certain WHOIS-related obligations under ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) — specifically, the requirement that people or company registering domains provide valid contact information. Now the firm is requesting that ICANN shut down the worst alleged offender, Xinnet Bei Gong Da Software. According to Knujon, none of the WHOIS records in a sample of 11,000 alleged spam sites registered through Xinnet and reported by Knujon to ICANN's Whois Data Problem Report System were corrected in a six-month period ending in May 2008 — and the Chinese registrar continues to register about 100 spam sites per day. In many cases, says the Knujon document (PDF), Xinnet does not have 'any Whois record data for review while the sites are still active' and the spam sites further promote 'seal abuse' by posting bogus BBB, Verisign, and other trusted industry seals. ICANN says it is investigating. ICANN has just posted a draft revised RAA that is open for public comment until August 4. However, the wording of Section 3.7.8, governing registrars' obligations to check and correct domain owners' contact information, hasn't changed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

GASP and SHOCK! (0, Redundant)

thefear (1011449) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899677)

Spam from China? GASP!

Shamelessly stealing previous joke (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899711)

If spam is a "whopper" of a problem, and burger king's "whopper" is a cheeseburger, then...

ICANN has cheezburger?

Funny aside: my captcha is "verified", something which these domains were not.

Re:Shamelessly stealing previous joke (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899999)

Rest easy: there is no crime for stealing shit.

Re:GASP and SHOCK! (3, Interesting)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899921)

So if they shut down the registrar, wouldn't that invalidate all domains currently registered through them? I'm assuming some of those belong to legitimate non-spammers....

Re:GASP and SHOCK! (4, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899989)

Yes, it will. And those legitimate domains can get themselves transferred to a new registrar. Of course, in order to do that, I'd hope that they'd have to provide proper contact details, which would sieve out all the spammers.

Re:GASP and SHOCK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23901647)

GASP! There are legitimate domains in China?

Re:GASP and SHOCK! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900643)

Spam from China? GASP!

Funny how all the spam I receive is from Chinese servers but advertising for US products only available for purchase in the US and leading to US websites.

pot. kettle.

Re:GASP and SHOCK! (3, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900659)

A lot of the spam from China is from US spammers: throwaway domains are very useful, to duck blacklists. It's really an international problem, and tends to fester due to companies like this, which ICANN is typically unable or unwilling to disconnect.

Re:GASP and SHOCK! (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901019)

Spam from China? GASP!

Spam from domains registered in China. Not at all the same thing.

smelly chink has no right to use the Internet (-1, Troll)

wlllyhlll (1312459) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899681)

They output nothing but viruses, hacking, DDos, SPAM and so and so. M$ loopholes is helping them, that's for sure.

Re:smelly chink has no right to use the Internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899923)

Odd... Your .sig missed "wlllyhlll", twitter.

You need to get some serious help, twitter - your paranoia and persecution complex is really overwhelming.

Re:smelly chink has no right to use the Internet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900047)

He's going to get the most girls, because he is a narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellianistic all-in-one.

 

I don't trust the Chinese (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899747)

Their eyes are a little bit too slanted for my taste.

Re:I don't trust the Chinese (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899781)

Their eyes are a little bit too slanted for my taste.
Actually, if you're going to taste them, it's best to remove them from the eyelid entirely. At that point, they're really indistinguishable from European eyes, but much more flavorful.

After an hour or so, though, you need to eat another one.

Hmm (-1, Troll)

electronixtar (1042742) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899783)

Just wait here on slashdot to see China-hater's comments

Re:Hmm (0, Troll)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899797)

I'm betting they will be about evenly tied with defensive Chinese expats (much smaller numbers but much stronger feelings).

Re:Hmm (-1, Redundant)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899927)

Good old fashioned patriotism.

racism => disliking other people based on where they were born => stupid & bad
patriotism => liking a country based on where YOU were born => clever & good?

Shouldn't a country have to do something to earn your respect?
Is it that bad to not be proud of your country because it sucks?

ICANN is about as useful as the UN (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899787)

Which is to say... not at all.

seal abuse (3, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899799)

"Seal Abuse"

wow did the mental giants who first thought up using an inline graphic to portray legitimacy ever consider that someone may.... save... said graphic and re-use it.

Re:seal abuse (4, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899891)

You know you're living in the 21st century when "seal abuse" does not involve clubbing large numbers of adorable baby amphibious mammals in the Arctic.

Re:seal abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899947)

Seals are NOT amphibious.

Re:seal abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900599)

amphibious from Webster.com
2 a: relating to or adapted for both land and water

Amphibious, but not amphibian.

Re:seal abuse (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900633)

Sure seals are amphibous. They're just not amphibians.

Unless you're talking about water-soluble seals, but those have to be protected from rain too, not just from full immersion in water. But I don't know of any material used for sealing things, that is water-soluble.

Re:seal abuse (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#23904085)

So are you saying that seals can't walk on land, or that they can't swim in the water?

Re:seal abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23901157)

You know you're living in the 21st century when "seal abuse" does not involve clubbing large numbers of adorable baby amphibious mammals in the Arctic.

FAFAIK, only in Canada does clubbing not equal abuse...

Re:seal abuse (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901267)

Reminds me of this short joke:

A seal walks into a club ...

Re:seal abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23901509)

and? what's the punch line? you just going to leave us hanging like that?

Re:seal abuse (2, Informative)

aj50 (789101) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900357)

Yes they did.

If the seal is valid you can click on it and get an information page about the site.

If you get a page about another site or the seal isn't a link then the site isn't legitimate.

A faked verisign seal on a web site is a great clue that they're not the right people to shop with. It also makes spotting phishing sites a lot easier.

Re:seal abuse (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900367)

Even better, if they're lazy enough to just direct link, you may want to replace the "images/corporate_logo.jpg" file with "hello.jpg" [google.com] .

My prediction: Internet segmentation (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899847)

As it stands, I have observed some common practices of simply blocking traffic going to or coming in from IPs from certain foreign nations. For some businesses, this practice alone reduces a tremendous amount of spam without affecting normal business flows. It would also make sense for users and businesses to restrict all communications with peers outside of their borders if, in fact, it has no adverse affect to their business flows.

Ultimately, this could lead to a segmented internet where entire nations find themselves effectively cut off by policy.

I am undecided about whether or not this is a good idea, but if China and Russia won't stop their criminals, perhaps they shouldn't have a presence on the global internet. The message? Play nice or you won't be allowed to play at all! My guess is that internet sanctions would have much faster reaction than economic sanctions.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (5, Interesting)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899897)

Well, I'd be all for a segregated internet if it could keep all the American spam comments advertising drugs, loans, insurance and porn off my blog. Remember the USA is still the biggest spam producer. It would be nice if you could only spam yourselves.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (5, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899905)

"If China and Russia won't stop their criminals..."

You're aware that the US is still, by a factor of almost 4, the number one spamming nation on Earth? But don't take my word for it:

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso [spamhaus.org]

Now, you were saying? Sorry, it's hard to hear you when you're speaking from atop such a high horse.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (4, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900115)

Sorry, it's hard to hear you when you're speaking from atop such a high horse.
That's a pretty condescending attitude on your part as well.
We may have more spammers here, but at least we have a history of prosecuting and convicting at least some of them.
I don't really know whether China/Russia have ever convicting anyone of spamming, but TFA refers to a registrar that is either incompetent or complicit dealing with spammers and located in China.
Sometimes it's ok to criticize a country other than the USA.
Just let that sink in a little.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (3, Insightful)

ChameleonDave (1041178) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900301)

We may have more spammers here, but at least we have a history of prosecuting and convicting at least some of them.
What difference does that make to me, sitting here with an inbox full of American spam?

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23903925)

Then why are American spammers emailing me in Chinese unicode characters?

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (4, Informative)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900623)

I don't really know whether China/Russia have ever convicting anyone of spamming

I think the Russians are actually more effective than the Americans - they murder their Spam King Pins [theregister.co.uk] !

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0, Troll)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900925)

Who cares even if you shoot 90% of your spammers. What matters is that your country contributes more spam than China and Russia, yet you think banning Russia and china will solve spam problem. you related to Bushie darling?

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#23903627)

IIRC the standard formula in China for whether to deal with a cybercrime is this:


If crime is against China or Chinese interests=bullet in the head or long prison term

If crime is against outsiders=look the other way and cash the check


Now since I don't live there I can't tell you for sure that that is the way it is,that is just what I heard. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

ulash (1266140) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900153)

Come on - give the guy a break. He is merely sticking to his name ;)

On a more serious note, I think one of the biggest reasons for the existence of spam is the attitude of "It's not us, it's them". As MrNaz pointed out Spam is a huge problem originating from a lot of countries including the US and despite the existence of laws promising to penalize the big spammers. I think this is reaching such ridiculous heights that there may need to be formation of a specialized organization like the Interpol that will go after spammers.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900273)

Give you a break, you're merely using the monospace font for no apparent fucking reason.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900565)

-1 font lameness.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

daveytay (798497) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900241)

Nice proof, but not relevant to the issue at hand because the article is about registrars not the source hosts. Have you done a lookup of who registered those spam sites? That is what this is about. No RDNS makes life difficult.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900281)

That site has something against Canada. Brazil and Canada both have 125 known spam issues, but it ranks Canada higher, and reverse-alphabetically!

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900353)

the number one spamming nation on Earth?
...and don't even get me started on extraterrestrial spam.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (2, Interesting)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900943)

You're aware that the US is still, by a factor of almost 4, the number one spamming nation on Earth? But don't take my word for it: http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso [spamhaus.org] [spamhaus.org] Now, you were saying? Sorry, it's hard to hear you when you're speaking from atop such a high horse.

Does this take into consideration a large portion of the bots in the US being controlled by forces outside of the country? It's a pretty well known that just because a computer is spamming and its origin is within the US doesn't mean it's being controlled by an American.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (4, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901009)

Here is a list of the most prolific spammers in the world - aka. the people controlling these bots:
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso [spamhaus.org]

They're mostly american.

if the US has 4X the number (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 5 years ago | (#23903923)

why is that that I seem to get far more spam written by someone that obviously doesn't speak English as a first language?

I am not arguing the point you make, it just seems odd.

Are there really people dumb enough to click on some of these links? I guess there are or people wouldn't waste their time doing it.

Anyone that watches sports (esp American football) will know when they invent a drug that will make actually make your penis bigger...you won't find out via email...it will be every third commercial during the games.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901247)

But do you count the "origin" as the spammers country or the location of the servers?

I see allot of spam coming from china but it appears to be mostly linked with US products.

Spam yes, how about attacks? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901885)

I've not really notice China/Russia being any worse for SPAM than elsewhere, but one thing I did notice is that they seem to be much more often the source of cracking attempts against my boxen both at home and work. Even if a lot of it is just SSH password-guessing (sorry losers, I don't allow root-level SSH so you can stop trying that username), a large portion of the IP's involved in this seem to original from China and Russia. Still, I couldn't tell you how many are direct, deliberate attempts and how many are already-owned machines trying to expand their little armies...

A well, there's not much iCANN can does about this, as one doesn't need a DNS entry to port-sniff and attempt brute-forcing passwords. Denyhosts is pretty good at handling this, although I'd to find something that works a little closer to the firewall level so I could have some fun with redirects and tarpits.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899967)

The problem is that this ISP takes international registrations from spammers everywhere so blocking by a nations IP blocks is not going to help at all. Xenophobia may be comforting but is no help when the many of the criminals are likely to be in your own nation, it's better to go after them directly. As for hampering commerce with major trade partners to slow down some petty crooks that may be next door - implications are worth thinking about.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902021)

Block traffic from all domains registered through this registrar.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

Geak (790376) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900299)

The biggest problem with this thinking is that governments don't have any control over the internet anymore, telco's do. Various governments have proven time and time again that they don't want to have anything to do with regulating the internet whatsoever, probably because it's a big cost and they'll get a huge backlash from voters who will have more freedoms stripped away from them. Not only that but the telcos will start whining. The big telcos love globalization. A country like China needs more bandwidth? Sure, we'll lay down the fiber but it's going to cost you. While the telcos rake in the cash, the spam starts flowing faster. Sooner or later they'll be asking for more bandwidth to send more spam and sure enough the telcos are going to agree because it's a huge profit. The only way you will stop spam is to stop the spammers at the source. Force them to provide valid contact information so that when we receive spam messages, we can find the spammers, line them up against a wall and blow their freaking heads off. That might just be enough of a deterrant.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901049)

This is china we're talking about here. You can bet that the chinese government has control over the internet, just like it has control over everything else.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901095)

It would also make sense for users and businesses to restrict all communications with peers outside of their borders if, in fact, it has no adverse affect to their business flows.

And it's because of thinking like that that I, in Hong Kong, find it impossible to communicate with some people in the US.

I am undecided about whether or not this is a good idea, but if China and Russia won't stop their criminals

"Their" criminals? The criminals are OVERWHELMINGLY AMERICAN. They use hosting services overseas. The US government could crack down on these if it wasn't in thrall to commercial interests. Trace the money. Block their credit card activity. No money, no spam.

See the ROKSO list [spamhaus.org] : 72 of the top 115 spammers are American.

CLEAN UP YOUR OWN HOUSE BEFORE YOU START FUCKING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901225)

I don't claim the US is innocent, not even by implication. I am only pointing out that blocking out other countries is quite effective unless you're doing business overseas.

And as far as finding it impossible to communicate with people in the US is concerned, you can see the how and the why in action.

Sometimes really bad solutions have to be enacted before people will be interested in fixing the solution better which results in the problem being solved in a better way. Otherwise, it's just easier to do nothing as most people do.

But I'm well aware that the majority of spammers are in the US. But a lot of them use non-US hosts to send their stuff out. It's still a very effective measure. Further, if US spammers were forced to resort to using hijacked computers in the US to do their spamming, they'd be in jail a LOT sooner or simply out of business...I wish there were a better expression than "out of business" because they are in criminal activity, not business.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901591)

And as far as finding it impossible to communicate with people in the US is concerned, you can see the how and the why in action.

No, I can't. I'm trying to contact friends and people I'm doing business with in the US, their ISPs bounce me because I live in the same continent as some spammers. And it doesn't stop spam to any extent anyway.

But I'm well aware that the majority of spammers are in the US.

So why did you say "China and Russia won't stop their criminals" when the criminals Are American?

But a lot of them use non-US hosts to send their stuff out. It's still a very effective measure. Further, if US spammers were forced to resort to using hijacked computers in the US to do their spamming, they'd be in jail a LOT sooner or simply out of business...I wish there were a better expression than "out of business" because they are in criminal activity, not business.

Brilliant. Hey, I hear the black people are more likely to be violent criminals than whites. Why not just lock them all up? Or at least, put a curfew on them? That would be a "very effective measure", don't you think?

And if you think I'm angry at being collateral damage, yes, I'm really pissed off. Aside from the basic injustice, trying to block the hosts is hopeless. The moment you start slowing them down, they'll just switch to another country. The only way to stop it is to stop the actual spammers, IN AMERICA. Most of them are committing fraud of one kind or another, selling drugs illegally, etc. Your government makes no more than a token effort to enforce the laws. How many spammers have been sent to jail? One? Two? in the last 10 years. Or are they still out on appeal? Put them in jail. Stop the credit card companies from processing their accounts. That would stop most of them cold.

Re:My prediction: Internet segmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23902561)

202.10.64.0/20 is one of theirs. Now it's up to you to iptables that.

another idea (-1, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#23899939)

You know, why don't they just disconnect China from the internet completely. I think that would solve everyone's problems, apparently the Chinese government's included since they're paranoid about giving anyone real internet access. All they have to do is drag a boat anchor across their coast lol.

Re:another idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900105)

You know, why don't they just disconnect China from the internet completely.
What "they"?

who gives a fuck? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23899965)

why don't you fucking linux fags just shut your fucking mouths and let the real experts code. go jam it up your faggot asses like you do the big fat aids dicks. fucking homos need to just go to fucking homo hell.

Re:who gives a fuck? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900277)

Thank you kind sir, we shall do that forthwith!

anti-spam kills anonymous speech (4, Insightful)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900133)

Yet again, "ID cards" are proposed as a method to curb spam, at the expense of anonymous speech.

When are we going to actually fix our protocols?

Re:anti-spam kills anonymous speech (2, Insightful)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900635)

Nothing wrong with the protocols, they work work just fine. In fact they work so well that around the world they are capable of handling millions of messages a day across a constantly changing network with an incredibly small failure rate. Perhaps what in fact need to be fixed is the people and the businesses they run, may I suggest a crowbar or other suitably large piece of metal.

Re:anti-spam kills anonymous speech (4, Informative)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900675)

RespectMyPrivacy.com [respectmyprivacy.com] is a service provided through NearlyFreeSpeech.Net [nearlyfreespeech.net] that allows users to put up proxy contact information with which people may still contact you. Snail mail and faxes are forwarded to their addresses, and when they receive any snail mail or faxes addressed to your domain, they will ask you whether you want these forwarded to yourself. There is also a proxy email that forwards to the email account that you used to register. All of this (allegedly) complies with ICANN regulations, since the information can be used to contact you. The simple solution is the one provided by RMP.C, and it doesn't compromise anonymity.

Perhaps the situation is not as bleak as you make it out to be.

Re:anti-spam kills anonymous speech (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901281)

What's wrong with email as it is?

I know it chews CPU time when a spammer blasts you, but that happens with all services connected to the Internet.
Changing a protocol is only going to cause incompatability issues.

Re:anti-spam kills anonymous speech (1)

hughk (248126) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902095)

There is an 'ID' card, if people bothered to enforce existing laws. To collect inbound payments for V1agra, etc., you need to be able to process credit cards. To get the necessary processing account setup, you should be required to prove the beneficial owner of a company. This is an existing law and easy to enforce. It doesn't stop someone who wants to start a 'screwthepoliticians.com' protest website.

Contact info is better found on the web site. (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900163)

There's been a formal study of bad WHOIS data by the Government Accounting Office [gao.gov] , the investigative arm of Congress, titled "Prevalence of False Contact Information for Registered Domain Names", on this topic. They found at least 8% of contact info in WHOIS to be totally bogus. They also, as a test of ICANN, submitted 45 "WHOIS information problem reports", of which 11 resulted in correction and 33 did not. But GAO didn't break down the data by registrar.

We've been interested in this issue at SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] for some time. We take a broader view of "bad" web sites than most; we consider any commercial site that lacks valid business name and address information to be bogus. Over 35% of Google AdWords advertisers fail that test. [sitetruth.net] For advertisers whose ads appear on Myspace, the ratio is much higher.

Originally, we tried to get contact information from WHOIS data, but the data quality was so appallingly bad that we had to develop another approach. We have a system that looks for contact info the way a user would, looking at pages with names like "About", "Contact", and such, trying to find a user-readable street address. We also have some big databases of business addresses to check against. This turns out to work much better than looking at WHOIS data when the goal is to find the business behind the web site.

(You can see this info using our AdRater [sitetruth.com] plug-in for Firefox. Download our plug-in to see the ratings for each Google advertiser as the ads go by. Unless you're already blocking all such ads, of course.)

Whois invites SPAM (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901905)

The problem with a lot of this is, WHOIS records themselves invite SPAM (conveniently having your email address available to spammers) or other issues. Personally, I'd rather not have some internet eTard with a hot temper and righteous indignation at something I posted online coming to hunt me down via my address in a WHOIS entry...

Re:Contact info is better found on the web site. (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902011)

GoDaddy requires you confirm your whois info about once a year. I have read they will cut you off if they find it is inaccurate.

Re:Contact info is better found on the web site. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#23903151)

I don't want my real physical address listed on my domain for the world to see, and I don't have a P.O. box. As a business these complaints are irrelevant, but as an individual I have a right to privacy and requiring valid contact information infringes on that right. This issue is bigger than stopping spam. It's time we looked into making the necessary upgrades to the mail transfer system, and stopped trying to put bullshit bandaids on the problem.

Re:Contact info is better found on the web site. (2, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#23903831)

I don't want my real physical address listed on my domain for the world to see, and I don't have a P.O. box.

We get that a lot. Now go read California Business and Professions Code Section 17358 [sitetruth.com] , which applies if you sell to California, and the European Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) [sitetruth.com] , which applies if you sell in Europe. Anonymous businesses are illegal in most of the developed world. Deal with it.

California prosecutors have used B&P code section 17538 [state.ca.us] when dealing with complaints against online businesses. If the business didn't comply with the address disclosure requirements, but accepted credit cards, the maximum penalty is six months in jail for that alone. Do anything that brings your anonymous business to the attention of prosecutors, and they have that hammer to hold over you.

Diplomatic incident (2, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900285)

This could cause a Chinese/USA diplomatic incident. The Chinese upset ''because ICANN (a branch of the government of the USA) is exerting unfair control over the Internet''.

This is one reason why ICANN should be made completely independent of the USA government.

So the US owns the internet? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900443)

Not to be more anti-american than I have to, doesn't this show that the United States, in some sense, "owns" the internet? If not, why?

Re:So the US owns the internet? (4, Informative)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900637)

The US doesn't exactly own the internet. ICANN however is supposed to be the central authority on DNS naming(someone has to be and they're the ones who started it), whether you agree with this or not is really rather immaterial.

However as this isn't really an issue of the US overriding China's rights on the internet it's not really all that important.

The registrar, who happens to be in China, but could be anywhere for all that it matters signed an agreement with ICANN to follow its rules regarding domain registration. One of those rules it that valid contact information has to be present for all domains. It doesn't as far as I can see have to lead to the person who runs the address, or to any individual involved in the domain(so it's not really an ID card), it simply has to lead to an actual someone who is responsible for that domain. That person is free to decline any requests for information regarding the actual users of their domain, and even to not collect said information at all. They are also entitled to allow said users to continue any activity which doesn't breach the agreement they signed with ICANN or any laws which are applicable to them(ie US law does not apply to a Chinese registrar, but the registrar's agreement with ICANN does). Yes there are potential issues of censorship and you might argue that requiring an individual to be responsible for the registration is wrong, it is however the agreement which the registrars signed in exchange for being able to give out registrations which will be honoured by the internet as a whole and so therefor they're responsible for holding to it.

Re:So the US owns the internet? (0, Redundant)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901329)

No the United States of America doesn't own the internet, they often think they do but they don't.

IP range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900481)

It would have been nice if the IP range would have been in the article, so that I can filter packets from that range in case ICANN somehow fails to block it.

It's ironic. Don't you think? (3, Informative)

kinabrew (1053930) | more than 5 years ago | (#23900489)

It's ironic that they want domain owners to provide valid contact information in the belief that this will stop spam.

Before I moved to a registrar who provided free anonymous registration, I provided fake contact information specifically to prevent spambots from looking up my information in whois.

Re:It's ironic. Don't you think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23900989)

We're going to end up with a two-layered interenet: one layer that provides anonymity and one that provides privacy.

One would think the two go hand-in-hand, but this is an example of how they diverge.

The registration process calls for identity validation so that administrators can collaborate and be held accountable to some degree for compliance with the terms of the agreement. However, that information must be kept private to some degree. Hence, we enter into a world where there exist various circles of trust, within which identities have been validated, and the rest of the internet.

Re:It's ironic. Don't you think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23901395)

The same registars allowing phishing sites to be untraceable due to anonymous whois entries? I think those things do more damage than good.

Not really (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902347)

It's ironic that they want domain owners to provide valid contact information in the belief that this will stop spam.

No, actually it really isn't ironic at all. The mechanism makes sense when one considers how many more internet users there are than internet domains. The purpose of requiring valid contact information is so that there is a valid mechanism for contacting the owners of domains that are being spamvertised. The reasoning behind this is simple - if the companies that benefit from spam are required to make their true contact information known, then a mechanism to take action against them is available.

Which is where the problem lies with the registrar mentioned by the article (as well as many others). If you don't know where a company is actually located, you have no mechanism to try to take action against them.

Physical confirmation (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#23901039)

The only real solution, but not perfect either, is to send a physical confirmation letter (snail mail) to the address in question. The letter would contain a confirmation code that needs to be used to activate the account. Until that happens the account and domain would be reserved for one month before it is returned to the void.

What would be interesting is whether it would be possible to add some intelligence into the DNS server, which checks the whois database to find out who the registrar is. You could then use that as a method for flagging possible domains at risk, or not resolving them. Another approach would be to include this a plug-in for Firefox or other web browsers. The catch is providing the service without killing the whois servers.

Re:Physical confirmation (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902051)

I don't think SMTP usually involves DNS. But spam-listing all the registrar's domains would be possible. Almost every spam email contains links. That is the key.

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23901587)

Worst registrar EVER.

r u kidding me....reverse psych 101 (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902823)

Guys, we have to hold on to this ISP, the fact is it is easier to have all the websites on one
ISP, then block that ISP from ever being allowed to show up in your browser, then it is to can them, and have to redo all the tracing work of where is this website now, and where is that one.

We have lost enough resources already fighting this,
we should leave them alone and let them think they are ok where they aren't.
This way I wont have to reconfigure everything all over again to block a new slew of ip addresses.

Not sure if its even the worst (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#23902877)

I can say from my own experience with spam that there are plenty of bad registrars in China, even when only considering which ones are spammer-friendly. Most of the spam email that I receive as advertising for illegal sales of drugs or pirated software is sent on behalf of domains sold by Chinese registrars.

A few Chinese bad apples:
  • HKDND
  • yesnic
  • easydns
  • paycenter
And these are just a few bad registrars that I find by searching through a short collection of my spam.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...