Beta
×

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!

KnujOn Updates Top 10 Spam-Friendly Registrars List

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the naming-and-shaming dept.

Spam 80

alphadogg writes "Some companies are more popular than others for spammers wanting to register their domain names. Spam-fighting organization KnujOn has updated its report on the top 10 registrars whose customers are linked to spam and other illicit activity. (We discussed the original report last year.) These 10 companies registered 83% of the domains spammed in KnujOn's sample of spam between June and January. KnujOn found that some companies have cleaned up their act in recent months and that others — most surprisingly, Network Solutions and GoDaddy sister company Wild West domains — have popped up on the list. At the top of KnujOn's list, for the second time in a row, is Xinnet.com, a Chinese registrar linked to more than 3 million spam messages. KnujOn recommends that ICANN threaten to pull Xinnet's accreditation, as it did for some of the offenders on the previous list."

cancel ×

80 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

just a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26754755)

can't a bigger fish block them till they clean up?

Re:just a thought... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26754795)

can't a bigger fish block them till they clean up?

Welcome on the internet!

Re:just a thought... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755297)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
 
Version 3, 29 June 2007
 
Copyright &#194;&#169; 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
 
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
 
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
 
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
 
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
 
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
 
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
 
Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
 
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
 
Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.
 
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
 
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0. Definitions.
 
&#226;&#8364;oeThis License&#226;&#8364; refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
 
&#226;&#8364;oeCopyright&#226;&#8364; also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.
 
&#226;&#8364;oeThe Program&#226;&#8364; refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as &#226;&#8364;oeyou&#226;&#8364;. &#226;&#8364;oeLicensees&#226;&#8364; and &#226;&#8364;oerecipients&#226;&#8364; may be individuals or organizations.
 
To &#226;&#8364;oemodify&#226;&#8364; a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a &#226;&#8364;oemodified version&#226;&#8364; of the earlier work or a work &#226;&#8364;oebased on&#226;&#8364; the earlier work.
 
A &#226;&#8364;oecovered work&#226;&#8364; means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
 
To &#226;&#8364;oepropagate&#226;&#8364; a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.
 
To &#226;&#8364;oeconvey&#226;&#8364; a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
 
An interactive user interface displays &#226;&#8364;oeAppropriate Legal Notices&#226;&#8364; to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
1. Source Code.
 
The &#226;&#8364;oesource code&#226;&#8364; for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. &#226;&#8364;oeObject code&#226;&#8364; means any non-source form of a work.
 
A &#226;&#8364;oeStandard Interface&#226;&#8364; means an interface that either is an official standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that is widely used among developers working in that language.
 
The &#226;&#8364;oeSystem Libraries&#226;&#8364; of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A &#226;&#8364;oeMajor Component&#226;&#8364;, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
 
The &#226;&#8364;oeCorresponding Source&#226;&#8364; for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
 
The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.
 
The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work.
2. Basic Permissions.
 
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
 
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
 
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.
3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
 
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.
 
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
 
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
 
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
 
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
 
    * a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
    * b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to &#226;&#8364;oekeep intact all notices&#226;&#8364;.
    * c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
    * d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
 
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an &#226;&#8364;oeaggregate&#226;&#8364; if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
 
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
 
    * a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
    * b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
    * c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
    * d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
    * e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
 
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work.
 
A &#226;&#8364;oeUser Product&#226;&#8364; is either (1) a &#226;&#8364;oeconsumer product&#226;&#8364;, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, &#226;&#8364;oenormally used&#226;&#8364; refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
 
&#226;&#8364;oeInstallation Information&#226;&#8364; for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
 
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
 
The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.
 
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
7. Additional Terms.
 
&#226;&#8364;oeAdditional permissions&#226;&#8364; are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.
 
When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
 
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
 
    * a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
    * b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
    * c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
    * d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
    * e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
    * f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.
 
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered &#226;&#8364;oefurther restrictions&#226;&#8364; within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
 
If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable terms.
 
Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way.
8. Termination.
 
You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
 
However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
 
Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
 
Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
 
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
 
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
 
An &#226;&#8364;oeentity transaction&#226;&#8364; is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
 
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
11. Patents.
 
A &#226;&#8364;oecontributor&#226;&#8364; is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's &#226;&#8364;oecontributor version&#226;&#8364;.
 
A contributor's &#226;&#8364;oeessential patent claims&#226;&#8364; are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, &#226;&#8364;oecontrol&#226;&#8364; includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
 
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
 
In the following three paragraphs, a &#226;&#8364;oepatent license&#226;&#8364; is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To &#226;&#8364;oegrant&#226;&#8364; such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.
 
If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. &#226;&#8364;oeKnowingly relying&#226;&#8364; means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
 
If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.
 
A patent license is &#226;&#8364;oediscriminatory&#226;&#8364; if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.
 
Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.
 
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
 
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
14. Revised Versions of this License.
 
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
 
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License &#226;&#8364;oeor any later version&#226;&#8364; applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
 
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.
 
Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version.
15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
 
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM &#226;&#8364;oeAS IS&#226;&#8364; WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
 
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
 
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.
 
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
 
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
 
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the &#226;&#8364;oecopyright&#226;&#8364; line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
 
    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
 
    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.
 
    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.
 
    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
 
If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:
 
    <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
    This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
 
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an &#226;&#8364;oeabout box&#226;&#8364;.
 
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school, if any, to sign a &#226;&#8364;oecopyright disclaimer&#226;&#8364; for the program, if necessary. For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 
The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

Re:just a thought... (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761331)

Domainsite is on the list because they have just about the cheapest prices on the planet.

Hope they don't come out on the bad end of something, the support is top-notch. I actually got a phone call from the owner on one occasion because an order was interrupted halfway through, and when I called the one time that their management backend was down I actually got to talk to a real live person.

Try that with GoDaddy.

Disclaimer: I am not an employee of domainsite but I have a lot of domains hosted there.

Wild West Domains? (-1, Offtopic)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26754797)

Well it's no surprise they're on the list. Bunch of cowboys...

Dadum-tishhh /try the veal/

Red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26754815)

Okay, I'll bite...
Why does this have a red headline on the front page?

Re:Red (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26754903)

cmdrtaco is on the rag.

Bug (2, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755843)

Subscribers get to see articles before they are posted on the main site (but they can't comment on them till they go live). To make it obvious that these were stories that havn't gone live yet, they are displayed with a red title. At some point in the transition to the new firehose-integrated index page, this code was broken and now sometimes live stories will be displayed with the red title. It's been like this for months, however, it appears that the slashdot team would rather spend time ruining the profile pages than fixing bugs in the (otherwise promising) index page.

Re:Bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756443)

Thank you for the clarification

Re:Bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26769907)

It's been like this for months, however, it appears that the slashdot team would rather spend time ruining the profile pages than fixing bugs in the (otherwise promising) index page.

You must be new here... it's been that way since 1998. Nested mode still doesn't do pagination correctly if an individual thread is larger then the # of displayed replies on the page.

Re:Red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756407)

I think it is to alert the First Posters to get ready.

Threaten?? (1)

Puffy Director Pants (1242492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26754919)

Just pull the plug on them, on the whole internet for that matter. That'll teach those spammers a lesson!

Blacklisting registrars (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755085)

Is there any easy, automated mechanism to find out who the registrar of a domain is? This information could be very useful to spam filters and RBLs based on registrar could then exist.

WHOIS doesn't count, as it's not designed for mass querying.

If there isn't such a mechanism, I think that it could be a very useful thing that ICANN could do.

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755201)

That's hardly fair. Just because a domain is under a certain registar doesn't mean they're spammers - my domains are registered under a Wild West Domains subsidiary, and I know a few people that use GoDaddy. I don't need my personal email suddenly being marked as spam on accident because my domains are through one of those registars.
Now, if accreditation were pulled, then obviously I'd want to change registars, and it wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Blacklisting registrars (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755321)

I don't need my personal email suddenly being marked as spam on accident because my domains are through one of those registars.

I don't think it would work like that... this isn't a list of where the spam comes from... that is presumably bot nets. This is a list of what domains are being advertised in the spam. So, you'd look up the registrar of each domain mentioned in an email. If the registrar is a big spammer, you'd give them a few extra points toward their spam score. Wild West wouldn't get too much of a penalty, since only 0.36% of their domains are spamvertised. On the other hand, anything mentioning a "Planet Online" domain is much more likely to be a spam message... a whopping 39% of their domains have been spammed.

The only way this would harm you is if you send out bulk email to your customers, they are somewhat spam-like, and they don't have you whitelisted.

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761421)

a whopping 39% of their domains have been spammed

I would think that a whopping 100% of domains have been spammed. Did you mean that 39% have sent spam?

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761581)

No, as I said, the mail does not come from the domains... it comes from bot-nets. However, 39% of their domains have been mentioned in spam. I probably should have used the word "spamvertised".

In any case, filtering your mail by giving a high score to any mail with one of their domains in the body would probably be a good move :)

Re:Blacklisting registrars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762749)

a whopping 39% of their domains have been spammed.

That means that 61% haven't and that all those customers would end up as collateral damage while the spammers just move elsewhere, as they always do, anyway.

But I think the bigger question is this: do you want ICANN to be able to arbitrarily pull the plug on registrars? Seriously, sometimes, it seems to me that "spam" is the Slashdot equivalent of "terrorism" - you just need to claim that something's done in order to combat spam, and everyone (well, many people) will suddenly go blind to any possible side effects, slippery slopes and so on.

Re:Blacklisting registrars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755381)

I don't think it's unfair. People could implement and use blacklists as they please, just like they do with source IP -based blacklists at the moment.

The only change would be to provide enough information to give people a choice.

This would have a good market effect too - people will avoid irresponsible registrars due to problems getting legit email through, so registrars will have an incentive to be responsible.

While we're at it, the system should allow us to determine the age of a registration too.

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757661)

I am with Register.com, so I certainly don't want all of its URLs blocked. There is too much innocent third party damage with that system.

Re:Blacklisting registrars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755531)

That is a stupid idea.

I have seen that happen when ISP's blacklist moniker.com.

Many people have legit sites and they get impacted by these blacklists.

I hate any kind of spam filter that just blocks email. Email should always be received in the worst case it should go to a junk folder.

Spam/Email Marketing is not bad compared to most things. Deal with it!!!

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

catman (1412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757361)

I have spent the last few months cleaning out the corporate spam filter. I know that we have accidentally deleted several mails that should have gone through (and released spam mails). We simply could not afford to spend the manpower necessary for a scrutiny of the spam folder(s).

The point is that the sender does not know that the false positives were deleted and NOT RECEIVED. IF it had been blocked at the server instead of filtered, the (legitimate) sender would get a message to that effect from his own mail system. A spammer doesn't care either way, of course.

Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

El Yanqui (1111145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757385)

I have some exciting offers for you and your penis. Please post your email address since you don't mind receiving them!

Re:Blacklisting registrars (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764767)

I hate any kind of spam filter that just blocks email. Email should always be received in the worst case it should go to a junk folder.

Spoken like someone who has never administered a mail server for more than 3 users.

Spam/Email Marketing is not bad compared to most things. Deal with it!!!

Spoken like a spammer.

Excellent (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755253)

The registrar I use has dropped off the list. I no longer have any qualms about signing up for a reseller account with them. :-)

Spam... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755269)

Will not go away overnight. It is a lucrative business for those who are becoming exceedingly desperate. Removing the registrars on that list won't help anything in the long run.

It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755369)

Maybe some registrars are more spam-friendly than others, but as long as domains are so absurdly cheap, there's not a lot registrars can do to prevent abuse. If they freeze one domain, the spammer or phisher or whatever just spends a few bucks to get another one.

Ever get spam from Continental Who's Who? They use a different domain name with every daily email!

Not that I think it will ever happen, but I'd dearly love to go back to when domain registration was a monopoly, and a second level domain cost you $50 a year. That's not a lot compared to the cost of maintaining a high-visibility web site — and low-visibility sites don't need second level domains. This situation ended when people started whining about getting "ripped off" by registrars. Opening up competition brought registration fees down, but it also destroyed service levels and enabled another kind of ripoff: squatters who can afford to register thousands of domains on the off chance that somebody might be willing to pay a few thousand bucks to use them.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755633)

Maybe some registrars are more spam-friendly than others, but as long as domains are so absurdly cheap, there's not a lot registrars can do to prevent abuse.

They can have an automated call-back system like my bank does... that way even if the credit card they are using is stolen, they'd still have to provide a phone number each time they register a domain.

It would be trivial to track purchasing behavior based on phone numbers, and this would force spammers to somehow get access to a new phone number each time... raising their cost somewhat.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (2, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756391)

It would be trivial to track purchasing behavior based on phone numbers, and this would force spammers to somehow get access to a new phone number each time... raising their cost somewhat.

http://www.tossabledigits.com/ [tossabledigits.com]

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757081)

That's pretty good, and sort of what I was talking about upping their cost a bit.

But I can think of some countermeasures. It's an arms race... there's no solution that will one day solve spam, you just have to keep making it more expensive for them.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (4, Informative)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755637)

Abuse WILL happen, but Xin Net went beyond having a lot of people registering spam domains with it. They would suspend domains when KnujOn and others asked, and would then give them back to the spammers. Additionally, Xin Net keeps letting the SAME abusive customers with the same WHOIS data keep registering new domains.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756437)

So what? It's not that hard to fake registration data. The registration data for my own web site is bogus, because I registered it before registrars started offering anonymous registration.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756681)

You're not supposed to do that. Your domain could be suspended until you update the data, and even possibly revoked.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756935)

Only if you used the ones tightly controlled by ICANN. CCTLDs can and do have different policies. Some don't even publish contact info in whois entries.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757157)

Right, and when was the last time you heard of that happening to anybody?

A long time ago, when I was still silly enough to think I could help stamp out spam one spammer at a time, I looked up the whois entry for somebody who was spamming me. The phone number was useless (don't recall whether it was bogus or just didn't pick up) so I found out who lived at the address given and called them. It was an old woman who didn't even own a computer.

I presented this evidence to the registrar — and got nowhere. The person answering abuse complaints didn't even understand that there was an issue. After a couple of clueless email exchanges, they just ignored me.

I know what you're saying: registrars should be required to investigate complaints like this. But if they did, it would cost them a lot. Which would mean no more cheap registrations. Which is where I came in.

Anyway, what makes you think that we can file complaints faster than spammers and scammers can register new domains?

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26800623)

Congratulations! Your email to my registrar forced me to correct my registration info. Now that you've forced me to Do Things Right, you only have 1,532,438,221 bogus registrations to go before you've totally cleaned up the registration system!

Then again, all I did was click a button that set all my contact info to the "anonymous" values they provide. (They didn't provide this service when I first registered.) So I've just replaced one set of useless data with another.

But while I was doing this I noticed that the feature that was supposed to remind me to renew was disabled. So I guess I should thank you!

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26808051)

The whole point of WHOIS is to have a liable, legal contact. If you got a notice of infringement of copyright or something- for whatever reason- they'd send it to your WHOIS info. The whole point of WHOIS info is to have accountability.

And the reason the registrar made you change your WHOIS info is, if they allow customers to repeatedly use fake WHOIS info, they could lose their accreditation. Any legit domains could be moved to a compliant registrar, while the spam domains get revoked.

Oh, and people DO lose their accreditation. See EstDomains, revoked because of all the spam and bogus registrations. It DOES happen. By making registrars have accountability to prevent spammers (by preventing them from registering 1000+ domains on the same credit card & whois info and giving them back shortly after suspending them without actually doing anything), it makes it harder for spammers to keep their domains operating, making it less profitable as they need to register new domains AND send out new spam with the new address.

And it's hardly "useless data". If you receive a legal complaint, and you had bogus WHOIS data, that could come to bite you in the ass in a HUGE way in court. Yeah, it's rare. Now, your hosting company gets any correspondence for you, and sends it to you- so you get privacy too.

You're welcome :D

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

crow (16139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755771)

You don't need to raise the price, just raise the minimum initial price. If it's currently $10/year, leave it at that price, but set an initial minimum 5-year registration. For real domains, that's fine. For spammers and squatters, that's a significant bump in their costs.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756521)

Actually, it's a lot less than $10 if you register a lot of domains at once. And no, forcing squatters to buy multiple years at once won't raise their average costs much, because squatters often hold on to their domains for years before finding a buyer. I suppose spammers might be hurt, but given the scale of the spam business, not by much.

Anyway, what is the big deal about $50 a year? If your web site has any volume at all, it's costing you thousands to to keep the lights on. The day when you could host a major web site on a server in your closet is long gone.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756919)

Anyway, what is the big deal about $50 a year? If your web site has any volume at all, it's costing you thousands to to keep the lights on.

Really? I bought in to DreamHosts's new-year's special: $64.44US for two years, including domain name. I would think that if domains were $50/yr instead of $10/yr, I'd likely not have received such a low price. Even at their best rate (bought ahead of time) of $6/month, a jump in registration price of $40/yr (approx $3/month) would likely be noticeable.

Re:It's Not the Registrars, it's the System (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757317)

Yes, and DreamHost is so reliable.

That was sarcasm. I used to use them, and bailed after not being able to get my email with any reliability for days at a time. And while they offer uncapped bandwidth, I'm dubious of their ability to actually provide it. Couldn't say for sure, because I never served that many bits.

That "best price" you mention requires a ten year up front payment. Having walked away from $60 or so in advance payments I'd already made to them, I'd think twice about giving them $700.

I'll say it again: if your web site has any volume at all, you'll spend a lot more than $50 a year on hosting. If you go cheap, you have to live with either bandwidth caps or reliability issues. There's no free lunch here.

To summarize the summary, people are the problem. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756497)

and low-visibility sites don't need second level domains

Long-lasting websites need domains at whatever level puts them outside the control of a single ISP or ASP. If that's the second level, then that means they need SLDs. If there's a third level that you can just register a domain under without being tied to a given ISP (eg, state.us), then they need that kind of third level domain.

The thing is, if you made SLDs unaffordable, then there would be a demand for reliable third-level registrars, and many many people would switch to using reliable 3LD registrars, and the same problem would exist at the third level instead of the second.

Quoting Douglas Adams, "To summarize the summary, people are the problem."

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757033)

The thing is, if you made SLDs unaffordable, then there would be a demand for reliable third-level registrars, and many many people would switch to using reliable 3LD registrars, and the same problem would exist at the third level instead of the second.

Yes, but then you'd have an easy way to identify domains from a spam-friendly registrar: just look at the 3LDN. You can't do that with 2LDNs registered by Wild West (not without a whois lookup, which adds too much overhead) and even if you could, you'd end up filtering a lot of innocent sites.

Anyway, I question your definition of $50/year as "unaffordable." Even annual hosting costs on a minimal web site are more than that. Most people who maintain real web sites could easily afford it. A few would switch to third-level rather than spend that much money just to have a 2LDN for their blog or vanity site. (Though, come to think of it, most blogs already use 3LDNs.) But that's not a matter of affordability, that's a matter of how much something is worth to you.

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758079)

Yes, but then you'd have an easy way to identify domains from a spam-friendly registrar: just look at the 3LDN.

You mean like .co.uk?

and even if you could, you'd end up filtering a lot of innocent sites

Um, why would you not expect that to be a problem for 3LD registrars?

Anyway, I question your definition of $50/year as "unaffordable."

Oh, sorry, I thought that was just an example. If you want to keep spammers from buying and throwing away domains you need to make it too expensive for them, and I doubt $50 would be enough to do the job... and once you get the price high enough to deter spammers, it's going to deter non-spammers as well.

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758597)

Um, why would you not expect that to be a problem for 3LD registrars?

Because if everybody's getting spam from *.welovespam.com, nobody's going to want to register in that namespace.

If you want to keep spammers from buying and throwing away domains you need to make it too expensive for them, and I doubt $50 would be enough to do the job... and once you get the price high enough to deter spammers, it's going to deter non-spammers as well.

To be honest, I suppose I'm really bitching about the fact that people decided that registration costs were too high, and bitched about it until the marketplace was made competitive. This meant you could renew your domain for a small annual fee, but also that you can't get a really useful domain name without paying a lot of money to a squatter. Ironic, no?

But back to spammers. Spam is profitable because there's almost no overhead. Obviously it's true for the cost of sending out the spam, but it's also true for domain registrations. Never mind the $10/year that most people pay. Anybody who needs a lot of disposable domains can register them in bulk for pennies each.

I suppose I should be arguing that all domains should cost $10, no matter what. That would certainly make it less cost effective to use disposable domains. (Or maybe not. Spamming is pretty profitable.) But for me, the $50 figure always comes to mind, because I remember everybody whining about it when Network Solutions had a monopoly and that's what they charged. People didn't complain because it was a lot of money (it's not). They complained because it was obviously mostly profit, and that ticked them off.

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26759243)

Because if everybody's getting spam from *.welovespam.com, nobody's going to want to register in that namespace.

With Tucows and other people offering reseller-in-a-box packages, you really would just be pushing the problem one level down. It wouldn't be "*.welovespam.com", it would be a "*.cool.com" that had 30,000 legitimate domains by the time one of their resellers turned pink.

But for me, the $50 figure always comes to mind, because I remember everybody whining about it when Network Solutions had a monopoly and that's what they charged.

I recall paying $35 a year to Network Solutions, not $50. Which is why $50 seemed like an example. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26759571)

Oh well, OK then. I still want to go back to expensive domain names (I'll see to it after I've finished selling skis to Satan) but I'll concede that it probably wouldn't impact spam much. Then again, nothing will, short of a meaningful ID infrastructure so that somebody who wants to send you email has to actually identify themselves. So all this ranting against "spam-friendly" service providers is really silly.

$50 was the price charged by NS when .com and the other major domains were first invented. I forget when they lowered the fee, (1995?) but as I recall they lowered it to $35 in an effort to head off attempts to end their monopoly.

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764551)

Extending the TCPA to cover spam, so you could sue spammers in small claims court for $250/incident, like you can sue telemarketers, would probably do the trick. But it'll never happen.

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26768743)

How do you bring somebody to small claims court who lives in Russia or Nigeria? How do you even trace the origin of spam from a botnet?

Re:To summarize the summary, people are the proble (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26771407)

The biggest source of spam is the united states. If you could effectively eliminate US spam it would have a huge and permanent impact on the spamosphere.

You don't need to trace the origin cold, or even at all. For a spammer to make money he has to tell the customer how to find him. You follow the money.

We don't like you so pull their accreditation (1, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755391)

While I'm not saying that spam is good by any means, the argument of "we don't like you so ICANN should pull your accreditation" is a fairly stupid one.

Now, if they're involved in something illegal - not annoying/immoral - then I'd like to see that argument made; however, the argument KnujOn currently makes is "we don't agree with how you're running your business, so we think you should be put out of business."

That, I believe, is pretty fucking stupid.

Re:We don't like you so pull their accreditation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755695)

I agree pulling accreditation would be a stupid idea along with blacklisting registrars.

Email is just another form of marketing.

Spam filters have killed email. You never know if an email is received or not anymore.

All email should be delivered. Spam could go to the junk folder.

Stop the war on Spam it is like the war on drugs a lost cause.

Re:We don't like you so pull their accreditation (4, Informative)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755893)

You should probably take a look at the Google Message Security ROI calculator [google.com] . You might learn a thing.

Probably not two. That'd be too much to expect.

Re:We don't like you so pull their accreditation (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755735)

IIRC, the contractual basis that they are going after is whois records. The spam-friendly registrars obviously have fraudulent whois records, which is a breach of their contract with ICANN.

Spammers will not have legit whois records because this would probably result in their arrest :)

Re:We don't like you so pull their accreditation (3, Insightful)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755803)

This is the most retarded backlash I've heard.

Any accreditation scheme is a method for industry regulation. This is why we *have* accreditation: it functions at a higher ethical standard than legality. So while it's perfectly legal for an unlicensed plumber to do work in your home, it's not guaranteed the work will be up to an acceptable standard. If the work is substandard and damages your home, you can sue, but most people don't want to run the risk of possibly having damage to their home and subsequent legal action. A licensed plumber, on the other hand, must work to certain standards. While the industry is in a completely different league (barring "series of tubes") I am comparing apples to apples here.

It's simple: if a company doesn't fulfill the standards for accreditation, then of course they should be booted, and have to work twice as hard to regain that accreditation.

If the accreditation body only pulls membership based on the legality of what a member is doing, then what is the point of their existence? They're leaving all the work to the legal authorities and doing precisely none themselves.

Re:We don't like you so pull their accreditation (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755941)

> Now, if they're involved in something illegal - not annoying/immoral -
> then I'd like to see that argument made; however, the argument KnujOn
> currently makes is "we don't agree with how you're running your
> business, so we think you should be put out of business."

In a lot of places, spam and other forms of service/resource theft ARE illegal.

Just thought I'd point that out.

It's like retail shoplifting.... you and I both pay higher prices so retail stores can cover their shoplifting losses. Spammers steal, too, and you and I (again) pay our service providers to cover those expenses.

Apparently, I don't have nearly as much tolerance for being ripped off as you have.

--Richard

actually... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756661)

if they're involved in something illegal

A lot of spam currently involves the illegal sale of (often bogus or counterfeit) drugs and (usually pirated) software. the registrars know this, too. But they continue to do business with these criminals anyways - why? Because they make money off of it, of course.

Surprising? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755447)

Since when is the news that a GoDaddy sister company called "Wild West" doesn't have the most stringent anti-spam procedures surprising? The only surprise is that they weren't on the list already.

Re:Surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756479)

Since when is it surprising that Network Solutions would be involved with spamming. They have been crappy from day one and being absorbed and spit back out by Verisign doesn't appear to have made them any better.

Huh? (1)

Dan Parker (966952) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755639)

"...risk loosing accreditation..." It teh innernet speling!

Protest KnujOn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755875)

Their research is flawed! It is not the domain registrars fault! Email Marketing should not make a difference for a domain.

GoDaddy already has a crazy policy about antispam do not make it worst.

Fight for email marketing! Fight for email delivery!

Stop these crazy blacklists and spam filters

DON'T Protest KnujOn (3, Informative)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755903)

One responsibility of a registrar is to try to stop fraudulent domain sales.

In this case, some of these companies (Xin Net in particular) keep allowing the same spammers with the same obviously fake Whois info keep registering new domains. And Xin Net has suspended domains when KnujOn and others report them, and shortly afterwards, give them back to the same spammers.

Re:Protest KnujOn (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756011)

I think you should protest by forwarding them all of your spam.

Re:Protest KnujOn (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756303)

Sounds like someone makes a lot of money off of spam...

Awesome grammar in TFA (1)

darpo (5213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755993)

"Beijing Innovative Networks and Joker were issued Breach Notices by ICANN. They were basically told to clean up their operation or risk loosing accreditation"

Loose accreditation? I thought that was the cause in the first place!

Protest KnujOn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756093)

Protest KnujOn

Their research is flawed! This is NOT what we need. Blackmailing domain registrars to change their policies is unfair.

Who cares if the domain is used to send email marketing,emails.

KnujOn is encouraging the the use of blacklisting registrars which hurts everyone from websites to people sending email.

Email is meant to be delivered, bring email back to the people! Fight this. Fight this to the end.

Re:Protest KnujOn (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756321)

Who cares? I do. A lot of people do. You, on the other hand, seem to have an investment in keeping spamming easy and cheap. Let me guess where your paycheck comes from...

Re:Protest KnujOn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26768999)

Paycheck comes from send emailing of course!

Spam filters have ruined email for everyone. We need freaken guaranteed email.

Long Live Email!

eNom and their safe harbour wikipedia page (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756231)

I attempted over the last year to document much of eNom's complicit nature towards their spammer customers, using verifiable independent references on wikipedia.

However, Demand Media's PR person eventually arrived on the scene and started rewriting the page, whitewashing and massaging references to spam and the stats as their pertain to their top-tier status on the URIBL, etc.

Said PR person also added all kinds of fluffy corporate marketing garbage such as an "awards and accreditations" section.

To make matters worse they have a couple Wiki admin buddies that let them have the final say on the white washed version. The original IP address of their corporate cleaner (goes by Thirdbeach) is an IP address at Demand Media.

Scum.

Color me confused? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756409)

I notice that #3 is Network Solutions. Then I look at the graphs, and they aren't listed at all. Are they using a different name for them in the graphs?

Re:Color me confused? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756853)

Net Sol = Network Solutions

Any more questions? :)

Re:Color me confused? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757327)

Thank you.

XiNet in china (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756469)

More likely that XiNet is left untouched is probably because its owners are well connected (politically) It's near impossible to run any decent size business in china without being well connected in some ways.

PlanetOnline for the win (1)

azadpanchi (1397945) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756891)

It made the list woohoo!!

I'd love to see this in SpamAssassin or a URIBL (2, Insightful)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757057)

I actually do something similar for my greylisting solution, scraping the SpamCop top offending /24 CIDR blocks and giving them a longer grey-time [wikidot.com] . It helps cut down on spam drastically.

I also do something similar within SpamAssassin, giving anything in APNIC an extra 0.5 points (with bayes and net). Here's that SA rule if you like:

header KHOP_THRU_APNIC Received =~ /[^0-9.](?:5[89]|6[01]|12[456]|20[23]|21[0189]|22[012])(?:\.[012]?[0-9]{1,2}){3}(\]|\)| )/
describe KHOP_THRU_APNIC Received through a relay in Asia/Pacific Network
score KHOP_THRU_APNIC 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.5 # lowered for autolearn and use w/ BLs

As mentioned by earlier posts here, there are just too many hosts to implement a straight-up blacklist hack like the two I just mentioned. We'd need some easier whois lookup or URIBL mechanism to deal with this. And those registrars are BIG and surely likely to have legitimate sites hosted too, so it must be in its own SpamAssassin test with a lower score.

About damned time... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757091)

Good to see that more people are starting to pay attention to the role that registrars play in the spamming epidemic that is affecting everyone who uses the internet. Now that people are starting to shine a light on some of the crooked registrars maybe there will be incentive for them to clean up their act.

It's just too bad that these bumbling idiots [internic.org] are the ones tasked with trying to make the registrars fly straight.

Now if we could get some control of the ISPs and hosting companies, we could make some forward progress from the other end as well...

Profits are profits, dirty money or not (1)

rach3l (1453863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757881)

Demanding the registrar to cut off spam is as nonsensical as telling a computer company to stop selling hardware to people who can't secure it. It's a profitable business, the end.

The ONLY solution to elimination of spam is to stop it from being profitable vis a vis elimination of demand for its products.

Just a second while I head over to the eugenics lab and get the ball rolling, ok?

Re:Profits are profits, dirty money or not (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26808061)

You ignore several facts:
-The criminals at these registrars often used the same bogus contact info to register domains 1000+ times. They won't provide real info. A good registrar would suspend the domains of customers doing that until they provided real info - since the spammers wouldn't, they'd lose the domains. If the domains last hours instead of weeks, it's lost sales for the spammers, cost & time to register the new domain, and need to send out more spam with the new site.
-If registrars WON'T comply, like these registrars- they lose their accreditation! EstDomains lost theirs for these activities (blind eye to bogus contact info & spammers).
-If they use a private registration service that won't comply to the spam notifications, a good registrar would suspend any domains by that private registration company until they acknowledged it. Or, the registrar loses their accreditation.

If the people who buy stuff from spam get "page not found" errors every time they try to visit sites, they will be less able and less inclined to buy from spam.

Python for the win! (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758659)

I saw that this article is tagged:

spam it spam story

...and I immediately heard that British waitress saying "Well, there's spam-it-spam-story, that's not got much spam in it." Wow I need to go outside more often.

We need a converse list. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764955)

Where's the list of the white-hat Registrars? I've got my two personal domains coming up for renewal.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?