From: "Lindsay Haisley" <fmo...@fmp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 2009, February 17 09:47
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case
> > someone
> > else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong
> > list
> > quoted.)
> The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008.
True. So what? The list Michael posted (which I snipped) shows the old
data collected BEFORE June 2008.
The link referenced does have the recent stats. The OP does not.
I have very mixed reaction to having name registrars enforce
anti-spamming regs and laws. This is kind of like sanctioning a gun
shop because someone bought a gun there and used it in a robbery.
GoDaddy caught a _lot_ of flack recently for shutting down domain names
based on website content, and rightly so, IMHO. This is a very slippery
slope. Sanction the operators of the designated name servers, maybe, or
the systems which host the accounts which do the spam distribution, but
coming down on registrars seems rather big-brotherish. Once a name is
registered, it's on the root name servers and all the registrar does is
maintain it in their whois database, although they do have the authority
to disable a name for which they're the registrar of record.
I'm as offended by spam to me and my customers as anyone, but I'm also a
big proponent of open source and net neutrality, and like to see
pressure applied where the actual functional responsibility for a
mis-deed lies.
Lindsay, with due respect I think your opinion above is incomplete.
It's correct as far as it goes.
But once a fertilizer dealer learns that a customer is making bombs
and setting them off in shopping malls I'd expect the dealer to cease
selling to that customer or be indicted as a co-conspirator.
I would expect the same behavior on the part of YouTube for illegal
videos, Slashdot for illegal content (egregious copyright violation),
and registrars for aiding identified spammers.
I would expect all those who need to be in the supply path for a
misdeed to work to remove themselves from that supply path upon proper
notification. I would NOT expect them to be proactive in this regard.
Reactive is fine and proper.
{^_^} Joanne
