fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet)

Steven Champeon schampeo at
Wed Jan 12 21:55:16 UTC 2005

on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:28:45PM +0000, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> "All" is too blunt a tool.

So, then, when registering a domain, there should be a little checkbox
saying "I intend to abuse the Internet with this domain"? It makes no
sense to have a universal policy if it is not universally enforced. Why
is it considered such a crazy proposition that domains should have valid
and correct whois data associated with them?
> > Please see my other message. Allowing domains with invalid whois data to
> > remain in use facilitates abuse in other realms.
> If it isn't "fixing insecure email infrastructure", then it needs to find
> a thread and/or list of its own.

Bah. You're saying that you're uninterested in discussing the root causes
that allow and even encourage abuse to occur in specific realms. I guess
you're not interested in actually "fixing insecure email infrastructure".
> The little table of domain names and redirects is slightly useful, but it
> would be more useful if your data could show registrar clustering. 

Why should this matter? Spammy can always choose a different registrar
every day. So what? He is registering domains for use in abusive and
criminal acts, and the message I'm getting from you is that it should
only be of concern to you if he uses the same registrar?
-- v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w:
join us!    join us!

More information about the NANOG mailing list