Archive for the ‘spam’ Category

Spamhaus Publishes List of “10 Worst Top Level Domains”

March 5th, 2016 Comments off published today a list of the “10 Worst Top Level Domains” The list is “not a list of the worst TLDs in quantity, several other TLDs have far more spam domains, but they also have vastly more non-spam domains. ” “This list shows the ratio of domains seen by the systems at Spamhaus versus […]

The post Spamhaus Publishes List of “10 Worst Top Level Domains” appeared first on

.AU Registry Finds Reseller and Registrar in Breach for Spamming

March 3rd, 2011 Comments off

auDA, the .AU domain administrator, has recently found that a reseller for the NetRegistry Group, NetAlliance Pty Ltd trading as NetFleet, has breached the .au Domain Name Suppliers’ Code of Practice (2004-04) by mass emailing 1,200 clients of another .AU drop catching service (Dark Blue Sea owned The email addresses had apparently been collected from whois.

According to the ruling, the actions of the reseller caused the accredited registrar, TPP Internet to be in breach of their accreditation agreement.

To rectify the breach, NetFleet and TPP Internet have undertaken to destroy or permanently erase all records of any information including, without limitation, any domain name or registrant contact record obtained as a result of the breach.

In addition, NetFleet personnel must undertake auDA policy training, and the company must conduct a comprehensive review of all its procedures and systems to ensure compliance with its obligations

[Ed. Granted, this may not be exactly "up to the minute", as this happened on Feb 24th, 2011]

[via auDA]

(c) 2011 (9)


We buy Domains!
We are interested in Acquiring your premium domains!
Click here to submit your domains now.

Whois Privacy Is ‘Material Falsification’

November 4th, 2009 Comments off

A ruling by the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit in the case of U.S. v Kilbride has determined that using whois privacy on domains can be considered “material falsification”.  The case involved an appeal on criminal charges of spamming. The ruling in this case provides an the courts opinion on provisions of  the CAN SPAM Act that specifically relate to the use of domains and were argued by the defense as “vague”.

In Title 18 § 1037 Section (d) (2). “Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail”  it states that :

For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a), header information or registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message, an Internet access service processing the message on behalf of a recipient, a person alleging a violation of this section, or a law enforcement agency to identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message or to investigate the alleged violation.

The defendants in this case were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1037(a)(3) and (a)(4) and argued that the terms “impair”, “materially falsify” and “conceal” in that code are vague.  The court however pointed out that ““When Congress does not define a term in a statute, we construe that term according to its ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.”  The court made it clear in their ruling that the defendants use of private whois information was “materially falsified”.

“. . . private registration for the purpose of concealing the actual registrant’s identity would constitute “material falsification.

Defendants assert that many innocent people who privately register without the requisite intent may be subject to investigation for violation of § 1037 until their intent can be determined, allowing for abuse by enforcement authorities. This may be so, but it does not make the statute unconstitutionally vague.”

“It should have been clear to Defendants that intentionally falsifying the identity of the contact person and phone number for the actual registrant constitutes intentionally decreasing the ability of a recipient to locate and contact the actual registrant, regardless of whether a recipient may still be left some avenue to do so. We therefore conclude Defendants had notice that their conduct violated § 1037.”

The ruling doesn’t make use of whois privacy illegal. However coupling the use of privacy services with an allegation of intentional spamming and you’ve got the cards stacked against you.

[Source : TechLaw blog]

(c) 2009

Upcoming Domain Industry Events, Conferences & Auctions