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!

GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the pay-us dept.


saikou writes "There were previous reports of GoDaddy, one of the biggest domain name registrars, attacking Bittorrent sites with frivolous interpretation of their own Terms of Service (that story was resolved), and now similar events unfold with clients of one of Russian domain registrars -- GoDaddy has informed them that all 1399 client domains are now blocked (story in Russian) due to 'many of your domain names were listed in the blacklist or were resolving to a name server or IP address listed in the blacklist' with a demand of a neat '$199 non-refundable administration fee to the credit card on file for your account for each domain name you wish to reactivate' or $50 for each domain to be transferred out into another registrar. I am all for fighting spam, but given how unreliable spam black-lists are such actions simply damage the internet. Instead of affecting people that use spam lists to control the inflow of mail to some degree, all users are effectively forced to be black-list clients. Now all one needs to shut down a site is a few reports of spamming, and the domain (or even better, all domains of a given small registrar) will be suspended."

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

fear the Tomato! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554683)

Cherry Bell, Sungold, Dombito, Inca; he knew all the commercial names of the outdoor varieties by heart. He even knew some of the Latin terminology. He sometimes thought of himself as a pimp, nurturing his progeny until they could go out among the home-grown produce of the world and earn him his just desserts. He even had private names for some of the more succulent beauties, the Fat Growers he called them. He lusted after the Plum tomatoes more than would be considered normal at any garden fête or allotment meeting, but nobody knew about his nocturnal habits, not yet.

His name was Reginal Potter, and he loved the feel of them against his flesh in the chill mid-Summer evenings after sun set. You could hear the leathery squeak as the firm flesh edged back your foreskin, coming, coming - always hit the spot.

He had been reading up on them all day on his two acre allotment. He had planted his deck chair in the shade of the plum tree and had fanatically read up on his favourite beauties from the new book he had found in the quaint bookshop in the Stephenson Alley, just north of the Town Hall.

The plastic walls of his potting shed wept condensation tears as the wet heat within them slickened his skin. It was late the same day now. He had a tan on his arms and on the back of his neck. As he touched the firm skin of the fruit, he could feel his fattening erection pressing against the right hand side of his khaki summer shorts. He closed his eyes, deeply inhaling the warm, sweet scent, savouring the aroma that told him the fruit on the vine was ripe for plucking. But not yet, he promised himself.

These have to be the juiciest of all his efforts. His prize winners. He took the bulging forest of a potted Gardener's Delight and held it against his naked chest as the sweat dripped down his back. Should I take off my summer shorts, he whispered out loud in the damp sweltering confines. He could see out of the plastic walls of his potting shed the jackal silhouettes scampering across yonder hill. He knew they would be the only witness to his rampant cock, leaping like a hurdling horse in the gaping bushel of night. Knew only the owls would pick up the rustling of leaves against his exposed perineum, the top two inches of the supporting stick inserted carefully up his pouting rectum, glistening with KY. He began to ease off the khaki coloured summer shorts, unable to control his need any longer.

Reginal Potter plucked the biggest, ripest tomato from his prize winning tomato plant. She was special; she gave him an endless yield of mutantly massive fruits time after time. He pierced the flesh with two dirt-stained digits, sighing as he fingered her tomato-cunt, her juices flowing over her skin and down his forearm, her acidity making his flesh tingle. He slid his ass off the stick with a sucking noise and sat on the ground. He leaned back into an embrace of succulent foliage, fine tomato hairs tickling his slick skin. His cock throbbed and bobbed against his belly aching for the feel of the organic pussy.

He thrust inside her, his huge cock squelching her little seeds all over him like vegetable female ejaculate. He loved the squelching noise she made as he fucked her; the vacuum caused by her wrapping her pulp around him and the motion of his wide cock made it seem almost as if she were sucking him with juicy red lips.

Reginal Potter moaned into the humid darkness, his breath coming in short gasps as he thrust in and out of her, red tomato flesh and throbbing skin knitted together beautifully in what was to him the perfect nature lover's fuck. His cock erupted and their juices swam together, her plump, fleshy mouth like that of a Malaysian girl sucking him dry as he thrashed around in the throes of his climax. He was ravenous now. He plunged his dentures into his red-hot lover greedily and ate of her flesh, squashing her into his bristly face, drinking down all her exotic juices, perfectly complimented by the still-warm salt of his own seed. He reached for another juicy red fruit, inserting his tongue like a potting spike. Seeds gushed down his shining chin.

In came the Triffid Firemen plants with their organic green hoses dousing down our hero in high-alkalinity effluent. It was meant to cool down his passion, temper his ardour, but like an Arab plunged into a cold shower it just turned his cock to expanded foundation concrete. They had ambled across from the far side of the allotments where Jack Reiman grew his research flowers, veggies and herbs, encouraged by the skanky musk of lust that poured from a seismic-shatter-crack in the shuddering potting shed.

The Triffid Firemen are a precaution devised by Jack Reiman at his place of work, the Fountains Institute, for his own allotment but they always try to make their way across to skunky old Reginal Potter's vibrating plastic shell. They had, until now, never made it to the door. Now they were in they didn't know what to do, to douse flame was their biochemical script... and Reginal Potter was still so very very hot.

They ploughed on in, spending all their factory enhanced juices on the sweating hero. Fronds of hyperlust crawled across the floor and shot up his gaping asshole, a pair of Betty Boo lips guarding the sphincter pouted at first in a defensive constriction then relaxed with a rectal gasp that sounded like the last gasp as the lungs of a dying man deflate under their own weight. The anticipation of mucous membranes. Rough branches swung about him and took him captive. Pods on the lower extremes of the Triffid Firemen opened up with girlish giggles and the faces of kittens, skin peeled back to the neck unfurled, their teeth pointed forward like drilling machinery. They shot into his skin, one after the other in a shower of pollen charge. Embedding themselves an inch or two into the muscle and fat before continuing to chew their way in. Reginal of porn capture struggled against the rough branches as kitten head after mewling kitten crunched an munched its way under his flesh.

When Reginal Potter got home, he slipped into bed quietly beside his wife of 23 years, careful not to wake her. But a soft hand reached over, into his pyjamas and stroked him on the hairy nipple, igniting in Reginal Potter the new inhabitants of his flabby flesh. The room ignited in a musky rage; he began to secrete slimy vegetable juices from every pore on his body. The tip of his cock opened up and out popped a meowing kitten head; it sniffed the air, searching, seeking - pussy wanted pussy.

Mrs. Potter looked at her husband with a startled deer in headlights gaze; she didn't make a sound, just watched her husband's mutating flesh with fascination. She still made no sound as huge succulent vines shot out of his asshole and wound themselves around her legs, pulling them apart. The kitty-cock purred as it found her cunt and plunged inside her; she made no sound until the little kitty's tongue began lapping at her G-spot from the inside.

She moaned and arched her back at the sensation of the cat fur rubbing the inside of her womb like a thousand little fingers and began to grunt at the sandpaper-rough tongue licking her insides.

Reginal Potter mounted his wife as two more kitten heads emerged from his nipples and began to munch on her huge round tits, her nipples hardening instantly to the attentions of the ground glass licks and the continued ministrations from the pussy pussy.

Reginal Potter looked down at his balls; they weren't balls anymore, they were giant Siberian tomatoes with human mouths complete with luscious tongues, licking and sucking at his cock and his wife's dripping cunt lips as they spewed acidic seeds all over them, tingling, stinging, burning, the pain deliciously spiking their pleasure.

When you think about it, Heaven and Hell are just differently spray-canned gang districts of the same ethereal neighbourhood. Many are the street-corner abusing gangs of Heaven and the pick-pocketing gangs of Hell. They sometimes share resources too: like tonight. A crowd of leering ethereal onlookers had gathered at the debauchery taking place in the Potters' matrimonial bedroom. They rarely show themselves, these ambassadors of Good & Evil, but tonight was different. Tonight the afterlife of pesticide infested vegetables and chemically enhanced fruit flies overlooked the debauch with slavering delight. Sure, perverts had historically used all sorts of sex aids, spiky fleshed cucumbers, EC regulation bananas, strawberries dripping blood onto your whites, ribbed cobs of corn fresh out of furry ears, peaches crammed into the arsehole like love eggs, pineapples rasping raw nipples. From all over the neighbourhood of HeavenHell all the rabid stinking dogs of death had congregated.

Brain Damage was the first to break ranks ripping into visualisation of the memory of flesh. Stinking of dog fur and scraped up human skulls. His mangy cock as ripe as a cherry was dripping musky semen and his testicle licking tongue hung out about a mile. He leapt upon Mrs Potter, rubbing his scrote all over her gasping mouth until she took in the shaggy-haired dogdick and relished the red pepper spice of its bitter cheese. Late Night Bondage unlooped from the coils of the ethereal next - whiplashing fronds of snake-headed execution rained down from the ceiling tearing the hapless shape shifter Reginal Potter from his mooring in his missus, cat headed cocks and nipple kittens still Burroughing the wife, ripped from his flabby flesh with rough nerve-screaming edges as he was lashed to the top right corner of the bedroom to witness the demise of his wife.

Reginal Potter had never seen his wife like this, she was taking on all comers. Then Donkey Sex unfolded from the ethereal ook, a 3 meter length cock unsheathing from a vegetable soup goo that roiled and slurried on the bedroom ceiling where the HeavenHell rift resided. The donkey cock split like a pollinating mushroom and razor sharp lengths of scythe and machete ejected from the meaty length. The braying was unbearable, a deafening cacophany of nightmare soundtrack overdubbed with Serge Gainsbourg guitar and the wispy groans of Jane Birkin. The neighbours started banging on the walls where Reginal Potter was being detained by the arms of HeavenHell all about him a reprimand of restraint.

His wife went into jiving overdrive, he didn't think she had it in her. He was astounded when she still moaned through her assault from a Chlorophytum, its spiky leaves tipped with bio-mechanical arachnids, shooting vitriol and venom into her body via dripping metallic fangs. They pissed spider web threads from titanium spinnerets, cocooning Reginal potter in the corner of the ceiling.

Rattling desiccated cock Opium Poppies ripped apart Mrs. Potter's colon, rapid firing hard seeds into her viscera. Reginal Potter's eyes bulged at the spectacle of his blood pissing wife as his asshole vines wanked his cock dry and his nipple kitties munched their way out of him and his cat-headed cock jaw-crackingly folded back on itself and ejaculated tomato seeded cum all over his wife and her assailants.

His wife's body was no more than a huge gaping animal vegetable mineral fucked bag of discarded rotten flesh now, dying in the throes of masochistic orgasmic perfection. Her shell began to spew and pulse again as nano bot flesh medics reknitted her back together and oxygen tank pricks breathed life back into her, making her new again, whole again, fitter and stronger and better for the next HeavenHell gang fuck.

a company selling $2 domain names is shady!!! (2, Funny)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554689)

Whats next, are you going to tell me that used car dealers can be less than fully honest? SAY IT AINT SO!

Re:a company selling $2 domain names is shady!!! (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554783)

a company selling $2 domain names is shady!!!

Whats next, are you going to tell me that used car dealers can be less than fully honest? SAY IT AINT SO!

Why? How complex do you think hosting a name <-> IP table is, especially when the basic, long-proven infrastructure costs are spread across tens of millions of domains.

Network Solutions, the other end of the cost scale, has hardly been a model of good registrar behaviour. In fact most people consider them the scummiest, shadiest of the group.

You're an idiot (0, Offtopic)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554858)

Police in Wichita, Kansas, arrested a 22-year-old man at an airport hotel after he tried to pass two (counterfeit) $16 bills. A man in Johannesberg, South Africa, shot his 49-year-old friend in the face, seriously wounding him, while the two practiced shooting beer cans off each other's head. A company trying to continue its five-year perfect safety record showed its workers a film aimed at encouraging the use of safety goggles on the job. According to Industrial Machinery News, the film's depiction of gory industrial accidents was so graphic that twenty-five workers suffered minor injuries in their rush to leave the screening room. Thirteen others fainted, and one man required seven stitches after he cut his head falling off a chair while watching the film. The Chico, California, City Council enacted a ban on nuclear weapons, setting a $500 fine for anyone detonating one within city limits. A bus carrying five passengers was hit by a car in St. Louis, but by the time police arrived on the scene, fourteen pedestrians had boarded the bus and had begun to complain of whiplash injuries and back pain. Swedish business consultant Ulf af Trolle labored 13 years on a book about Swedish economic solutions. He took the 250-page manuscript to be copied, only to have it reduced to 50,000 strips of paper in seconds when a worker confused the copier with the shredder. A convict broke out of jail in Washington D.C., then a few days later accompanied his girlfriend to her trial for robbery. At lunch, he went out for a sandwich. She needed to see him, and thus had him paged. Police officers recognized his name and arrested him as he returned to the courthouse in a car he had stolen over the lunch hour. Police in Radnor, Pennsylvania, interrogated a suspect by placing a metal colander on his head and connecting it with wires to a photocopy machine. The message "He's lying" was placed in the copier, and police pressed the copy button each time they thought the suspect wasn't telling the truth. Believing the "lie detector" was working, the suspect confessed. When two service station attendants in Ionia, Michigan, refused to hand over the cash to an intoxicated robber, the man threatened to call the police. They still refused, so the robber called the police and was arrested. A Los Angeles man who later said he was "tired of walking," stole a steamroller and led police on a 5 mph chase until an officer stepped aboard and brought the vehicle to a stop.

this is .... (2, Informative)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554690)

Just a big of a threat to net neutrality as that QoS crap

QoS, crap or Crapola(TM)? (1)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554799)

QoS can be very handy for managing traffic on internal corporate networks. Like many other technologies (e.g. the Evil Petting Zoo), QoS can be applied for good or evil.

Uh... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554693)

Maybe something was lost in the translation, but how can registrary GoDaddy block registrar's domains? Or is Majordomo just a GoDaddy reseller? This summary is very confusing.

Re:Uh... what? (0, Troll)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554741)

The summary is quite clear. This is Russia and confusion/extortion is business as usual. It's just that American audiences are shocked - shocked! - to see international companies having lower business ethics than a typical American company like Enron.

Re:Uh... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554767)

No, the summary is not clear. How can one registrar technically block another registrar's domains? There's nothing in the system that allows that.

Re:Uh... what? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554926)

Sure there is. The registrar keeps track of the authoritative DNS for a domain. Change that DNS record to point at your DNS server which directs any queries to it at a web server with a page that says "This domain has been disabled for spamming."

typical? (1)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554771)

Well, to be fair, Enron isn't a typical American company. Their hubris vastly exceeded their ability to cover their tracks, which got them caught!

: )

Re:Uh... what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554776)

It's just that American audiences are shocked - shocked! - to see international companies having lower business ethics than a typical American company like Enron.

This is bullshit. What Enron did was illegal. The people involved were tried, convicted, and are going to jail. The American justice system worked. The rule of law does in fact work here most of the time. Compare that to the situation in Russia (and much of the third world), where corruption is widespread, widely known, and unpunished.

Re:Uh... what? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554798)

Majordomo has nothing to do with this extortion scam. [b]GoDaddy[/b] blocked accounts of Majordomo's clients.

Re:Uh... what? (4, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554789)

The summary is really unclear (I'm a native Russian speaker, BTW).

Majordomo uses GoDaddy for international domain registrations for some of their clients. GoDaddy has blocked 1399 accounts of Majordomo clients because of spam suspicions.

Majordomo has nothing to do with this extortion scam.

Re:Uh... what? (1)

daniil (775990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554836)

I'm not a native Russian speaker, but this is what I gathered (FTA):

1) is a GoDaddy reseller.
2) The problem seems to be that GoDaddy claim to have acted upon complaints filed by Neither of the two complaints they cited were, however, about's customers.

Re:Uh... what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554862)

The fact that they're saying "Just give us a little money and these complaints will disappear" makes the whole thing even shadier.

No, they're not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554895)

They're saying "Okay, you screwed up, but if you've stopped spamming or fixed the problem, we'll give you a second chance. But, since out butt is on the line here, too, we'll need to make sure it's really worth it to you to get these domains back."

Shows what you know (4, Informative)

AlphaSys (613947) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554704)

SpamHaus is one of the most conscientious, well-organized, ethical and reliable lists around. Their SBL-XBL list is nothing short of essential in weighting ham and spam. I don't rely upon RBL information alone when weighting ham and spam, but if I did, I'd use spamhaus and nothing else. I'd agree with poster that RBLs are not all that great a single measure and YMMV, but don't spread FUD about spamhaus. They're great.

Re:Shows what you know (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554800)

SpamHaus is indeed one of the best outfits around, though I can see the poster's point if you're using one of the more unreliable services. The whole blacklist/whitelist idea is good, except where people abuse it as part of some personal vendetta or one company doesn't like another company. SpamHaus uses much better information to rot out just who is and isn't a spammer -- I'd be willing to bet their false positive rate is pretty low.

Re:Shows what you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554904)

Pretty low can still result in millions of dollars of damages to companies, domains going off air and so on.

Just because your a spamhaus fanboy doesnt mean they are perfect.

Re:Shows what you know (-1, Troll)

xmpcray (636203) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554847)



Very dangerous precedent (5, Insightful)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554705)

Once we allow domain registrars to become the Spam Police, very soon there will be political pressure for them to become the Content Police. It starts with spam and kiddie pron -- content that 99.999% of the world agrees is wrong. I guarantee it won't stop there.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (4, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554725)

Actually, you need some level of self-policing to curb the problem if you want to demonstrate that laws are not necessary. Why should a domain name registrar be less responsible for spammers than hosting ISPs? Especially, since spammers nowadays often host their sites on hacked Windows boxes, with the DNS switching from one machine to another all the time (thus making the domain name their most important asset).

Re:Very dangerous precedent (4, Insightful)

eneville (745111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554758)

If GoDaddy wants to make a stand they should alter their TOS to that effect BEFORE blocking domains. If they block the domains there should not be an extortionate fee to release it. The domain is neutral in this, the abuser should, although they are wrong, not have to pay GoDaddy in this way.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554801)

I agree they should only be able to handle according to their TOS, but their TOS does specify [] that domains for spamming can be suspended or terminated. Of course, by blocking all domains of an entire reseller, they also hit innocent bystanders.

I was mainly reacting to the sentiment that self-policing is a bad thing because it would supposedly encourage laws to this end though. Imo, it's exactly the other way around.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554864)

Suspended or terminated yes.

Presented with ransom demands is another matter altogether.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554889)

That's also in their TOS:

Go Daddy will require a non-refundable reactivation fee to be paid before the site, email boxes and/or services are reactivated.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (2, Informative)

PRC Banker (970188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554808)

My answer would be that you don't know the domains spam originates from.

Spam comes from an email server. A server can fake domain/origination names/addresses in emails, an email server is not a domain server, just a machine which may or may not be from that 'domain'. Simple. Domains that are linked in the spam could be traced, but are often taken down quickly and I could easily see some increase in deliberate noise/signal in spams using legitimate domains in amongst illigetimate ones in order to 'sell' products/services (i.e. using legitimate domains in URLs pertaining to spams, which are useless to sell the spammer's products, but may increase pressure in crackdowns against domains linked to by spammers).

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554820)

And unfortunately, with DNS vulnerabilities being what they are, it's easy enough to spoof or move a domain from one IP to send out the spam then switch the domain somewhere else. A mail server isn't going to know that a domain has been spoofed or moved, just like the postman doesn't know you've moved unless you tell them.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (2, Insightful)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554915)

Yes it will, that's why we invented reverse-DNS and more importantly SPF. This issue was resolved years ago.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (2, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554832)

Spamhaus collects domains used by major league spammers to host their sites, not domains appearing in the from-field of sent spam messages.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554974)

And godaddy used that information to shut down an entire registrar. RTFA. They went overboard.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554821)

Why should a domain name registrar be less responsible for spammers than hosting ISPs?

I see fundamental difference between the provision of naming and hosting/IP services. I believe naming should be provided on a "common carrier" basis, without regard to content. Spam is a problem, but some solutions are worse. The precedent set today with spam will be applied to other disfavored content tomorrow.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554863)

I see fundamental difference between the provision of naming and hosting/IP services. I believe naming should be provided on a "common carrier" basis, without regard to content.

If someone is abusing a service for illegal purposes, I don't see why that service shouldn't be taken away from him/her.

The precedent set today with spam will be applied to other disfavored content tomorrow.

As mentioned in another post [] , GoDaddy reserves the right in its TOS to do this if you spam or phish (and does not mention any other "disfavoured content" at first sight). That said, spam is not only disfavoured, but also illegal in at least the US and the EU.

If you, or that Russian spam services provider, don't like those terms, you/they are free to go somewhere else (again, like in that other post, noting the fact that in this case a bunch of innocent bystanders are hit as well, but that's not your point as I understand it).

Re:Very dangerous precedent (3, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554773)

Registrars are private entities... InterNIC is from last millennium.

If you want to enforce that registrars cannot impose restrictions on their clients, then what kind of slippery slope are you encouraging?

Are you saying that the worst murderous mobsters can operate massive criminal enterprises on a website hosted in an anarchistic country and their registrar should be prevented from denying them service?

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554786)

Are you saying that the worst murderous mobsters can operate massive criminal enterprises on a website hosted in an anarchistic country and their registrar should be prevented from denying them service?


Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554823)

You seem to have forgotten to indicate any reason why you would see this as acceptable. Why would you force registrars to act according to your will?

Re:Very dangerous precedent (3, Interesting)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554923)

You seem to have forgotten to indicate any reason why you would see this as acceptable.

I didn't forget -- I just thought it was obvious. For the benefit of the slow learners in the class, I'll repeat myself: Domain name registrars should not get into the content policing business. Today it's spam, which everybody agrees is terrible and should be stopped. Tomorrow it will be with some other type of disfavored content.

Why would you force registrars to act according to your will?

I see it the other way around -- the registrar is trying to force their will on me. GoDaddy is making a value judgement based on the content associated with the domain name. By disabling the name, they are removing my ability to access that content (yeah, sure, I could do it by IP address, but we have DNS for a reason).

Wherether you agree or not on private cases... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554845)

it's an old and long discussion. there's no point in repeating things as everybody has their opinion and nobody here's likely to change it.

but i'm sure that EVERYBODY agrees (no matter what they think of privte cases) that mass blocking and such extortion (htf is it sp?) can't be accepted.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (5, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554861)

Yes. The registrar has no business doing anything but the following:
OK, your bills are payed. Now when people type A, A is resolved to IP B instead of C (a parking page)

It's the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce law. But, in your own argument, the site is hosted in an anarchistic country. We (and whatever country the registrar is based in) have NO BUSINESS imposing law or right/wrong on another sovergn country OR IT'S CITIZENS OR BUSINESSES. We can yell/scream/make noise/threaten as much as we want, but we cannot enforce our views on them.

I abhor the IRS, but would still say yes (5, Funny)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554939)

Are you saying that the worst murderous mobsters can operate massive criminal enterprises on a website hosted in an anarchistic country and their registrar should be prevented from denying them service?
Some people may have valid reasons to access government sites.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554956)

What I don't get is how can they basically fine these people. They need to just let them move to another registrar if they so choose. It makes no sense to charge them in the process. They can find another 5-10 registrar and both give each other the bird and then move on with their lives. GoDaddy is just being a little bitch in this case.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (3, Interesting)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554973)

If you want to enforce that registrars cannot impose restrictions on their clients...

I rather read that as GoDaddy imposing restrictions on the clients of another registrar. That hardly seems like behaviour we would wish to encourage.

...then what kind of slippery slope are you encouraging?

Speaking of slipperly slopes, GoDaddy stand to make almost 300k from this stick up. I mean, it isn't as if this is going to solve anything, and it isn't as if GoDaddy are blocking them unconditionally. They're just saying "we want a slice of you're ill gotten gains or we drop all your packets.

The thing is, if we let this pass, that gives lots of registrars an incentive to start eforcing the law as they see it, and for material gain. That's going to encourage them to define ill-doing on the net loosely, since they get tp shake down more nets

Are you saying that the worst murderous mobsters can operate massive criminal enterprises on a website hosted in an anarchistic country and their registrar should be prevented from denying them service?

You're either trolling, or else you're taking way too much for granted here.

For example it's far from clear that murderous mobsters are involved, let along the worst sort (unless you define unsoilicited junk email as being identical to the unlawful taking of human life, that is). The criminality is open to question too since spamming is not (sadly) universally illegal.

And that's just the domains registered to GoDaddy are demanding money with manaces from all those domains. Unless Majordomo have some weird negative vetting process for thier clients, then the chances are that not all of them are crooks.

I can't see how GoDaddy have any ethical justification for their actions here, and I can't think of a single pargmatic reason why we should condone their behaviour

Re:Very dangerous precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554796)

What precident? Asshat's like and has been making snap judgements about blocking Class-C IP ranges for years. ...and if an innocent party dares to question them, they are moved further up on their blacklists. I don't see the community standing up against those fucktards.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (1)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554881)

I have no problem with RBL services, even ones run by assholes with an axe to grind. People are free to use an RBL to filter their incoming mail. I choose not to, but that's my choice, and I don't have a problem with you making a different choice for your inbox. I believe this is totally different than a registrar holding domain names hostage because of content associated with those names. In the current case, GoDaddy is making a value judgement for everybody else on the Internet, including ME, and I never gave them that authority.

Re:Very dangerous precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554906) is beholden to its investors and the rule of law. The fucking cowards at AHBL and SPEWS hide from the rest of the world and are only beholded to the voices in their head. They give you no way to get off their list unless you leave your domain host, which is bullshit.

Not surprised... (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554710)

Seriously, an outfit named "GoDaddy" was bound to say, "Who's your daddy?!"

Re:Not surprised... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554899)

And then they followed up with, "Gimme some sugar, baby!"

Re:Not surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554951)

More like "Who's your daddy, and what does he do?"

Kindergarten cop all over their asses.

Extortion (4, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554711)

How is this little more then extortion? They have a thinly veiled reason, but let's say the spammers pay up. Their domain is re-activated. What then? How does that stop them from being spammers? This is just GoDaddy grabbing people willy nilly and forcing them to pay for fees they've already paid for.

Re:Extortion (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554787)

I guess Go Daddy is aiming to spend Father's Day in jail.

"Hi kids, thanks for visiting me here in prison. I tried to make spammers give me some of their drug money, but ended up asking innocent people for drug money too. Oops. Maybe next year we can go have that picnic in the park."

Re:Extortion (4, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554891)

Exactly, I had one of my domain names held hostage by them about 5 months ago. They told me they had received a complaint about spam for my domain and so I was required to pay $199USD. I told them to fuck off and wanted to transfer the domain to netsol, but godaddy REFUSED to allow me to transfer without first paying them the $200. I took me more than a month of yelling at their 'managers' on the phone who didn't give a shit about ICANN regulations before they allowed the transfer.

Godaddy's policies are terrible, they will do anything to make extra money.

Re:Extortion (1)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554905)

so..thats $199 times 1399 = 278 THOUSAND 401 dollars.

i'm not from the US, nor a lawyer, but i remember reading somewhere that if the sum being extorted is greater than a certain amount then the thing escalates on fbi's priorities list and can be prosecuted more harshly... or i'm confused and mixing situations here ?

Not to mention that this is a matter of interstate commerce extortion, which makes it a federal offence already, no matter the amount of $$ involved.

Damn it! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554718)

When is someone going to start running summaries through a spelling and grammar checker or even rewriting them because reading things without commas and necessary punctuation along with incredibly long sentences is extremely hard you know and this particular summary is even more confusing now because we can't tell what the submitter even meant but hey CowboyNeal just always does some copy&paste stuff without caring about the audience right and it isn't important at all if TFA is in Russian and the letter unreadably formatted.

Re:Damn it! (2, Funny)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554912)

because if they souped up the form for people to submit stuff to have a spell and grammar checker, people would complain it takes anywhere from a half second on their dsl or cable modem to 2 seconds longer on dialup - and if it wasnt that, they'd complain about whatever script for it not working in Safari, Opera, etc, for that matter, it'd probably be an IE only compatible script, and not at all standards compliant...

Spam policing is good, but not for registers. (1)

Dr. Zowie (109983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554719)

If registers start policing spam on their sites, they will have stepped onto a steep, slippery slope that leads to policing content.

Spam is a problem, but handing even more power over to the registrars is not the answer to that problem.

Registrars, ISPs, politicians, and diapers need to be changed frequently -- for approximately the same reasons(*).
If I had any accounts with GoDaddy I'd be switching to Dotster or one of thousands of other registrars right now.

(*)apologies to Heinlein

Re:Spam policing is good, but not for registers. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554817)

If registers start policing spam on their sites, they will have stepped onto a steep, slippery slope that leads to policing content.

I think it's quite legitimate for a registrar to have terms of service and to reject hosting domains that violate these. If a registrar doesn't like porn, or multi-level marketing, or viagra sales, that's fine, as long as the customers are made aware of it beforehand. There are thousands of registrars, if you have a legitimate site you will ahve no problem finding hosting. But holding sites to ransom for any reason is another thing entirely, as it effectively censors a site. For spammers we can all shrug, but as noted elsewhere, it's easy to imagine abuse and false accusations.

So Sad (4, Interesting)

PingXao (153057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554722)

I just renewed a domain for 2 yrs with them and I sort of regret it. GoDaddy used to be a top-notch outfit. Low prices and no nonsense. These days it's low prices and lots of nonsense. Between the GoDaddy spam, other spammers they support via special arrangements, and their incredibly convoluted ordering and pricing schemes it's no wonder they're starting to plumb the depths of sleaze.

The thing is their prices are so great it's really hard to justify going someplace else. You can pay up to $35 a year at some of the boutique registrars.

Re:So Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554757)

You can pay up to $35 a year at some of the boutique registrars.

Your soul must come pretty cheap then.

Re:So Sad (3, Informative)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554764) I have all but 1 of my domains with them, and that 1 is a .tv domain (when are they gonna become transferrable?!)

As their name suggests, they are cheap. No-nonsense management interface and they're not Godaddy, which is always a plus. Only problem is their support could be a little more responsive.

Re:So Sad (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554813)

Yup, I second that recommendation. Namecheap's web panel interface is much more pleasant than GoDaddy's frustrating little exercise in misanthropy. If you decide to register your domains from them, you can use the code "EVENLOWER" at checkout for a discount ($7.99 registration, IIRC).

Re:So Sad (1)

atomicgirl (517460) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554961)

I've been moving my registrations over to Dreamhost. $9.95 including a one-year extension, and free private WHOIS listing.

Re:So Sad (3, Informative)

jsmethers (977148) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554765)

That's why I always use [] . They're both high quality and low cost. You can't beat 12 euro a year (about $15 USD) for the service they offer.

Re:So Sad (1)

zuvembi (30889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554785)

I'll second that. is exactly who I was going to recommend. Inexpensive, no-nonsense, and reliable.

Re:So Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554894)

I know nothing about gandi but I spent over 5 minutes clicking through their site to try to find a price list with no luck. They certainly try hard to hide it. Can you give me the URL with the price list?

Re:So Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554991)

It's right on the front page: See Gandi's price list [] .

Odd. (2, Interesting)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554727)

GoDaddy is usually pretty good about pointing out BS like this (eg bogus .eu "registrars", companies taking advantage of domain registration cancellation grace period, etc). I don't much like their style of advertising, but otherwise, they have been a great company to deal with on my personal domains. I'm looking for a place to migrate my business domains as well; this story has given me some second thoughts...

Re:Odd. (4, Funny)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554750)

Sorry you don't like their advertising.

Personally, I use GoDaddy for a domain registrar, and a host in some cases.

The only reason I started was because of their commercials. A tech company willing to have totally gratuitous shots of a chick bouncing her big boobs...well, that's a company for me.

Really- I did move a lot of business there because of the chick with big boobs. I guess that makes me shallow. Or a guy who likes boobs.

You Go Daddy!

I should clarify (was: Re:Odd.) (1)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554774)

I certainly did enjoy their television advertising - I just don't much like all the on-site advertising and upsells. On the other hand, I recognize that the reality of low prices and decent service is that there will be a tradeoff to make somewhere. I can deal with wading through the crap to get good prices, but I rarely recommend their services to nontechnical friends lately, just because all the options can make purchasing quite confusing.

Re:Odd. (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554827)

GoDaddy has no idea about spam lists, as to blocking domains because an telecoms/hoster decided that hosting a rokso class spammer means you get terminated too - hmmm well they wont be seeing me - btw that happened to recently, so are all clients spammers why yes it would seem so - ker ching!!!!.

as to .eu, they could have paid more but did not, please do not get confused between generic terms and real trademarks - you americans love to do that.

While spam is a problem, if there was a problem with our domains i'd like to know about it before some rich american businessman decides that he both wants to register '' for us and also demand $50 to unblock it for not spamming

If your going to do mass terminations - at least check they all spammed first - clients (not us) while 'tarred'with a spam from here brush for a day had the block removed when the one spammer 'left' thats acceptable. Godaddys actions are not.

Not gonna be popular.. (1, Insightful)

SirFozzie (442268) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554730)

But good for GoDaddy. Spam is one of the scourges of the net and anyone who spams doesn't deserve to be on it.

Besides, check out Spamhaus, it takes a lot more then a "few reports of spamming" to end up on their list. It takes solid evidence that you're a large-scale spammer or provide spam support services (such as bulletproof hosting)

Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554766)


Spamhaus is a completely wreckless group. Spamhaus Captain Steve Linford controls his posse of childish crusaders from his goddamn yacht in international waters. Not kidding. The man lives on a boat outside of the scope of any laws. His lackeys at home base act with wanton disregard for the havoc they are causing. Am I bitter? Yes. Am I a spammer? No way in hell!

We were bitten by Spamhaus not for our actions, but for the action of an individual with an open relay occupying an adjacent IP address range. Spamhaus blocked the entire thing. I emailed them our domain whois and the snobby little bastards at Spamhaus brazenly told me that we were indeed the spammer and that we need to "clean up [our] act" before they would do anything. They went on to talk about "spam payloads"... WTF?!

I hope someone takes them down. I applaud the efforts of others who try to DDoS them. Someday, Linford is going to be surrounded by the Royal Navy and he will hopefully be brought to justice.

Re:Wrong. (4, Insightful)

therblig (543426) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554901)

We were bitten by Spamhaus not for our actions, but for the action of an individual with an open relay occupying an adjacent IP address range. Spamhaus blocked the entire thing. I emailed them our domain whois and the snobby little bastards at Spamhaus brazenly told me that we were indeed the spammer and that we need to "clean up [our] act" before they would do anything. They went on to talk about "spam payloads"... WTF?!

I don't know about the yacht in international waters, but I agree that Spamhaus wreaks havoc on organizations that have done nothing wrong. Our organization has been black listed before too, and it was in error. It finally got cleared up, but it is still damaging.
We stopped using RBL's a long time ago, and have swtiched to something called Securence [] . It has been much more reliable than RBL's, and keeps the junk from ever getting to our server in the first place. I haven't had a complaint about a false positive since we switched, and it blocks over 100,000 spam/viruses/phishing attempts a day.

Take the LLC approach (1)

terrahertz (911030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554731)

Just register every domain against a unique entity -- a pain in the butt, but if this is the road we're headed down, I'm sure such a practice will become commonplace given the apparent risks vs rewards.

"Hostage" is just the right word (5, Insightful)

jiggerdot (976328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554733)

The most fucked-up thing about this story is not the blocking of 1399(!) domains, but the fact that fact they CAN be reactivated, if only you pay 199$(!!) for "administration fees". This is not about policing the internet, it's about squeezing more money out of their customers. If this guy pays up, what prevents them from doing the same shit all over again 2 years from now? Hell, I'd like to know what their legal justification is now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless they are are hosting the stuff, they have no liabliity here, do they? Huh. I wonder if this can be used as an admissin on their end of being liable for content and actions of domains registered under them? Talk about watching an avalanche begin....

Re:"Hostage" is just the right word (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554975)

... well, seeing as its "reactivation fees charged to the credit card on account" ... and that the REAL spammers probably used stolen cc info, they'll be going "no problem, comradeski, here's our NEW credit card info, charge away ... heck, charge it twice, you know, one for "next time", dah?".

Of course, the non-spammers end up with a kick in the head.

This isn't going to stop real spammers - they've got millions of windows slaves.

GoDaddy did this to us, too! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554742)

About six months ago, GoDaddy held 78 (yes, seventy-eight) of our domains hostage. They had all of our sites down (we receive approximately 2 million web server hits per day, about 160,000 unique sessions) for nearly 48 hours while we wrangled control of our domains back.

What was their excuse?

Someone outside of our organization had (for whatever unknown reason, as this is not our business) spammed using ONE of our domains as a the spoofed header-from domain. And yes, we publish SPF records. That wont stop idiots from trying.

Anyway, I personally spent close to one hour on the phone with their "abuse" people (ironic that they consider what we were doing abusive). I explained the situation over and over to no avail. We escalated to their lead "abuse" person. Same story. "Your domain was in a spam and we do not allow this"... When I would try to explain that it was not from us or on our behalf in any way, shape, or form -- we were curtly told "that's not what we've been told."

Now, I had also received the spam complaint. Their "abuse" ("abusive") people were going solely off what was written in this complaint itself. In ALL CAPS, the user cried bloody murder about "I DID NOT SIGN UP AND DO NOT WANT SPAMS FROM THESE PEOPLE"... GoDaddy did not lift one finger to actually investigate the situation and instead took the end users' word for it.

We had to get our lawyers involved. We had to fax them threatening letters. Finally, they so gracefully allowed us to tranfer our domains away from GoDaddy to another registrar for the very low highjacking fee of $50 per domain we were going to transfer.

Again -- this was not a spam from us, for us, or by us. It was a completely third party individual just randomly choosing our domain to spoof.

GoDaddy is a goddamn scam and I hope their company gets burnt someday. It would not surprise me if the spam was created by them for the specific purpose of looting their more deep-pocketed customers through these $50 "re-activation" fees. Month getting slow? Craft up another fake spam. Fuckers.

More profitable for you to leave than stay... (4, Insightful)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554910)

That's a shame. I've got a lot of domains with but am testing out other registrars and will be migrating more away. It's not just these sorts of reports, but also their switch to Microsoft IIS for parked domains that bothers me some.

The sad thing is that this sort of thing on their part really won't hurt all that much. How much money would they have made on each of your domains for the next *10* years? $30? I'm basing this on $3 profit ($9 - $6 wholesale cost - maybe it's different for them?) By forcing you to leave they've almost doubled that, and they don't have any work to do to service you for the next 10 years either!

If they could simply extract $50 from every single domain-name-only customer to transfer away they would be *far* more profitable than they are now because there'd be less overhead and work to do.

WTF? (4, Funny)

Some guy named Chris (9720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554743)

Sometimes you read the article description, and actually know less than when you started.

This is one of those times.

not goaddy's job (1)

eneville (745111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554744)

GoDaddy are not a organisation who should tell the domain registrant what they can and cannot do with their domains.

If GoDaddy does not wish to be associated with the content or the use of the domains, then they should force the owners to transfer them to another registrar, such as preventing the name servers from being added.

I wonder if this behaviour is aginst the ICANN rules.

OK, I've had it with GoDaddy... (2)

Howard Beale (92386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554751)

First the Microsoft migration, now this. Anyone recommend a good, inexpensive registar that supports spf?

Re:OK, I've had it with GoDaddy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554807)

namecheap (use coupon code BESTVALUE)

Koren fires missile at South, Claims Accident (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554760)

CNN reports North Korea launched a ballistic missle that destroyed a large part of Seoul, in South Korea. The Kim Il II was part of a test that went off course, according to North Korean sources. eamissle/index.html [] has more.

Re:Koren fires missile at South, Claims Accident (1)

Bohemoth2 (179802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554839)

I dont se it on any major news site. cnns server can't find it.

Re:Koren fires missile at South, Claims Accident (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554908) meast /06/17/northkoreamissle/index.html
Seoul's in the Middle East now? Very cute. Come back after you pass middle-school geography.

unreliable? (2, Interesting)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554762)

" I am all for fighting spam, but given how unreliable spam black-lists are such actions simply damage the internet. "
Assuming the problem referred to in the article summary is that of false positives, I think "unreliable" is really a misleading term to apply to the blacklists. Some of them are relatively reliable at their intended purpose--helping people reduce spam by blocking sources of spam.

The problems with false positives are really an externalized cost [] , which accrues largely to innocent and not-so-innocent third parties, since sometimes spam originates from IP addresses or domains where other legitimate traffic exits (innocently) but sometimes the owners of those domains are supporting the spam activity directly (not so innocently). Of course, some of the costs of blocked legitimate traffic accrue to the user of the spam list, but those folks are making a trade-off and pretty clearly feel the benefits to be worth the annoyances.

Regarding the central thesis that taking actions like these "damage the internet," may I suggest that in fact the odds of "damage" to anyone are probabaly quite low, assuming that the Registrar does proper due diligence before taking such actions. They should not take the mere presense on a blacklist as gospel, but should check the domains directly themselves.

I'm also amused at the likely effect of the "fee for restoration of service". Ticked-off innocent users will be unfairly charged, and are likely to complain very loudly. Such users will probably receive an apology from a help desk worker, and free restoration of service. Guilty users are financing their operation with stolen identity and credit cards and will probably just pay the fee using ill gotten booty. (Aaaarh, Matey! Make 'em swab the poop deck instead! [] )

Papa Don't Preach (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554769)

The guy who runs GoDaddy is a rabid rightwinger [] . Any surprise he's gaming the system to make maximum money, though it shuts down free speech (by stealing its name)?

This is brilliant. (0, Offtopic)

gru3hunt3r (782984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554775)

This is brilliant!!! No seriously, i'm routinely pissed off at the limited number of domains which correctly implement SPF. Fear is a great motivator.
Hopefully now we'll see increased SPF adoption among major ISP's.

ATTENTION FLAMERS/TROLLS: I'm not an idiot - I realize that SPF doesn't actually help avoid this problem, and subsequently keep your mailserver off black lists. But it does bring the topic "hiring a secure+competent DNS/mailserver" into the forefront.
It seems to me that if your nameserver, and your mail server resolve to the same IP address - then you're cruisin for a bruisin, because you probably don't have a terribly competent mail/dns host.

I'm not a lawyer - but it seems here in the US - it allows ISP's that host spammers and thus have their customers domains blacklisted to be LIABLE for damages (the fines that go-daddy levies, plus lost revenue).
Even if the ISP has a terms of service, blah blah .. commerce law is pretty straightforward: if I pay you to do a service (host my website), and a lack of competence in your service results in damages (domain name being suspended), you are liable for those -- so either have me sign a waiver stating "i know you're incompetent", get insurance to deal with it, or hire competent administrators in the first place.

So I guess we can all expect to be signing competency waivers for most ISP's in the near future.

Rock on GoDaddy!

Too drastic measures (2, Interesting)

skoval (921501) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554782)

Working at hosting provider's support in Russia I often had to inform clients by sending e-mail's to often not valid addresses about abuse reports. Basically I get no resonse until their site has been blocked. But sometimes we even couldn't do that if abuse was for domain resolving to our customer's server.
Blocking ip's at registrar's layer for me is more preferable, but procedure of unlocking a domain is a bit frightening although. Mainly because of the response time.
And blocking so many domain names is unacceptable at all.

It takes more than a "few reports" (3, Informative)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554792)

"Now all one needs to shut down a site is a few reports of spamming, and the domain (or even better, all domains of a given small registrar) will be suspended."

This demonstrates a poor understanding of how blacklisting works and how anti-spam actions are taken. Spammers who have actions taken against them usually have thousands of reports against them, from hundreds or thousands of disparate sources, over an extended period of time.

Did Microsoft cause this? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554809)

We know that GoDaddy is migrating to Microsoft [] . Now, the question that must be asked is: does this migration have anything to do with increased spam problems?

Re:Did Microsoft cause this? (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554981)

if that is the case, how much you wanna bet a crapload of those 1399 domains are for Linux or other F/OSS projects - which we all know M$ has long since declared to be "a spreading virus" (something of the sort)

Everyone - please vote with your dollars today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554818)

Personally, I'm moving from GoDaddy today. There are plenty of other low-cost registrars: 10 cheap (less than $10) domain registrars []

I agree that spam is bad. Having to worry about my domains being taken hostage is worse. Contributing to domain registrar policing of content is far, far worse.

If anyone registers a domain name with GoDaddy (or keeps an existing account) they are directly contributing to the loss of freedom on the internet.

undecided (1)

kuyaedz (921036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554848)

On the one hand I use & respect the RBL/XBL lists. I think they are the most organized and up-to-date spam listing site that I've been able to find & they have helped cut down on spam on our mail server by the truck load. If they say you're a spammer I would be reluctant to argue and I would suggest using their filter to anyone. On the other hand I think GoDaddy is one of the worst registrars out there. I've been fighting with them on a domain for over a year & they won't do shit about it. The registration contact information is in my name, the site content has my name all over it but because a previous marketing company (now out of business & unreachable) registered the domain I can't get a transfer w/o their acceptance. GoDaddy won't listen to anything and they can lick my balls. I basically have to wait until it expires and start from scratch. In the end my feelings on the article/news is: GoDaddy is extorting the customer. Don't use GoDaddy for anything.

godaddy unreliable? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554849)

It seems to me that godaddy has become a bad registrar over the past couple years. It has moved to MS servers, it has promoted the domain name hijacking market, it has severly degraded customer experience with exesive ads, and now had turned to extortion to make money.

Now, don't get me wrong. If godaddy saw a registrant engaging in uncuth activity, I would have no problem with godaddy sending a letter saying the registrant had 30 days to find another registrar. I would not even have a big issue with godaddy not giving a prorated refund. I would not even have an issue with godaddy helping bringing these people to justice. But in this case godaddy notices a venurable customer, perhaps engaging in crimanal acitvity, and is asking for a cut either in the form of protection money or a ransom. This is bad. This is worse than when earthlink negotiated protection money in the contract, because at least they were upfront about it.

So, who are the registrars that are not scum?

Policing thier own (1)

011011 (894467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554866)

This just smacks of misunderstanding. In orer for GoDaddy to block the sites, they must have some sort of ownership/licensing over the Russian registrar. I don't know if they still do this, but I know they used to allow "reselling" of registrar services under your own name. This Russian registrar could have been one of those. This type of service would have come with certain TOS that may have been violated.

With 1399 domains being reported to have been blocked under this one registrar, and assuming that this is a "reseller" under GoDaddy, this would look like it may have been a case where a person/company created a registrar service for the express purpose of being able to register domain names without question to be able to spam easily.

I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just giving one possibilty of what the case may be as we don't know all the details. And I can't read russian, so those details elude me. Hey, I could be WAAAAAYYYY off base.

Go with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554877)

If you are looking for an alternative I'd (kind of) recommend []

We have several domains with them ($5.95/domain), they are generally OK. Make sure you read the terms though, for sometimes they are not what one would implicitly expect.

Well... (1, Funny)

mrlsd (194099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554892)

GoDaddy has to pay for all those Microsoft licences somehow...

Their nameservers do not appear to be listed with (1)

jcurious (3000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554902)

Did a whois on a few of the domains listed in the email and they all had:
NS1.PETERHOST.RU and NS2.PETERHOST.RU listed as nameservers (ip address and doing a search on spamhaus site shows these ip addresses as not listed...

what is the deal?

Simple solution (5, Interesting)

Joe U (443617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15554993)

Pay the $50, move your domains, chargeback the $50 and/or file a suit in small claims court.

They'll dispute the filing and keep pulling out parts of their license agreement to counter it. Dispute the agreement as being invalid. When all is said and done, you'll be out a few days of work, GoDaddy will have wasted a ton on lawyers.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is Slashdot, use common sense, this is not advice, you are feeling want to buy me a 50" HDTV.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?