eNom puts domain on REGISTAR-HOLD

[diverge]

Has anyone had a domain put on REGISTRAR-HOLD for spamming? I have a client that uses a domain for their opt-in mass emails, but is periodically accused of spamming. However, today their domain was actually put on hold at the registrar (eNom, via NameCheap) for what appears to be a spam complaint.

I see that eNom "forbids" spamming, but this seems to be overstepping their bounds, somewhat. Has anyone else had this happen? What do you think?

 

[Sharpy]

I have a client that uses a domain for their opt-in mass emails, but is periodically accused of spamming.

Most people that opt-in do not realize they are opting in until the spam begins to flood their email. Then when they try to op-out, this signals the spammasters that there is someone live at the addy. They consider this double-opt-in lol. I have little sympathy for your client. I wish registrars would do this as the rule rather than the exception.

 

[GT Web]

I got a domain registered with Namecheap placed on Registrar Hold because the owner had basically hi-jacked the name from me...

 

[diverge]

Most people that opt-in do not realize they are opting in until the spam begins to flood their email. Then when they try to op-out, this signals the spammasters that there is someone live at the addy. They consider this double-opt-in lol. I have little sympathy for your client. I wish registrars would do this as the rule rather than the exception.

Wow, that's harsh. This client does, in fact, honor their opt-out. It's a shame the bad apples can create an environment where this type of overstepping is considered acceptable. Keeping in mind that shutting down a domain completely (no DNS resolves whatsoever) it akin to locking the doors on a brick and mortar business, and can literally cause a business dependent on email and web traffic to shut down completely. Additionally, doing so prevents other subscribers from accessing the site to modify their opt-in settings, causing them to get frustrated, etc., etc.

If we truly believe in the power and potential of the Internet economy, this would be the same as saying of a brick-and-mortar, "If a company is unsubstantially accused of unethical marketing practices, I wish the mortgage company would call up their mortgage". Shouldn't there be some form of resolution before doing so? While this may be within their rights, this speaks poorly of the service of the bank and would make me want to take my business elsewhere, on the off chance that one of my numerous other domains is somehow involuntarily involved in such an accusation. What happens when a yahoo member spams -- does their registrar shut down the entire yahoo.com domain?

Don't get me wrong, I am strongly against spam, and I am proud of the steps the Internet community has taken to stand against it. However, I don't feel that this type of lone-ranger enforcement is beneficial to the community as a whole, as it punishes the honest emailer.

P.S. It should be noted that this domain was using eNom's DNS servers. This could have been the reason for the registrar hold. However, attempts to change DNS servers failed, by virtue of the fact that the domain was on hold. If they want to protect their DNS servers from abuse complaints, they should simply shut down the DNS -- not the domain itself.

FWIW, here is a quote from the autoresponder on abuse@enom.com:

SPAM:
eNom has a zero tolerance spam policy. We monitor the use of our system and services to ensure they are not used for the purpose of sending out unsolicited email. Any issues regarding spam sent to this mail box will be evaluated for merit and acted on where appropriate, and therefore, we reserve the right to use your notice to substantiate the abuse to the client. We have also taken measures to prevent the abuse of our registration engine, web hosting, and DNS services at a transactions point of origin in an effort to contribute our part to the elimination of spam. Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to respond to each and every inquiry or complaint.

 

[jeffhuang]

i've a customer whose domain is on reg-hold because he stole(copied) all contents on other's website.

 

[Sharpy]

i've a customer whose domain is on reg-hold because he stole(copied) all contents on other's website.

good site to check out content plagiarism http://www.copyscape.com/

 

[jeffhuang]

good site to check out content plagiarism http://www.copyscape.com/

great tool! thanks!

 

[diverge]

Update: received the following reply from eNom:

We received several spam complaints concerning this domain name. In
accordance with our zero tolerance spam policy, the domain has been disabled
and will remain so as to prevent further abuse. We are not in position to
re-enable the domain, thus empowering the offender to continue the abusive
behavior. Our goal is to be 100% spam free, and strides are being taken in
order to attain this goal. We feel that our new policy will benefit all eNom
customers, as well as all internet users.
Regards,
eNom, Inc.

Please note that eNom never gave my client the opportunity to defend themselves, nor did they produce the spam complaints or email addresses in question to allow them to produce proof of opt-in. In my opinion, they have WAY overstepped their bounds on this one.

 

[Dave Zan]

Update: received the following reply from eNom:



Please note that eNom never gave my client the opportunity to defend themselves, nor did they produce the spam complaints or email addresses in question to allow them to produce proof of opt-in. In my opinion, they have WAY overstepped their bounds on this one.

So eNom has made itself known that it won't tolerate spamming,
eh? Just like Go Daddy....

BTW, was the domain name using eNom or namecheap's servers,
I'm sorry?

 

[diverge]

So eNom has made itself known that it won't tolerate spamming,
eh? Just like Go Daddy....

BTW, was the domain name using eNom or namecheap's servers,
I'm sorry?

Domain was using eNom's nameservers (through NameCheap). This may have been part of the problem, but they didn't merely deactivate DNS, they put the entire domain on REGISTRAR-HOLD, which prevents the domain from resolving on ANY DNS. Their email reply said nothing about using their DNS.

This is new to me. I called GoDaddy and DirectI.com trying to find another alternate registrar for the same (or similar) pricing that I am not afraid is going to hijack my domains for trivial / unsubstantiated issues such as this. I myself am anti-spam, but I need a registrar that at least values their reseller clientele enough to give them a little leaway / benefit of the doubt. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

[Dave Zan]

Domain was using eNom's nameservers (through NameCheap). This may have been part of the problem, but they didn't merely deactivate DNS, they put the entire domain on REGISTRAR-HOLD, which prevents the domain from resolving on ANY DNS. Their email reply said nothing about using their DNS.

This is new to me. I called GoDaddy and DirectI.com trying to find another alternate registrar for the same (or similar) pricing that I am not afraid is going to hijack my domains for trivial / unsubstantiated issues such as this. I myself am anti-spam, but I need a registrar that at least values their reseller clientele enough to give them a little leaway / benefit of the doubt. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I don't know about DirectI but don't choose GoDaddy. Once
they receive a spam complaint, attempt to contact you (if
they do, anyway), and don't get a reply, they'd "shut" down
your domain name, whether the domain's using their servers
or not.

Here's a thread I started about it, although I was stupid that
time:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=312923

Based on your reply about your client's domain using eNom's
DNS servers that time, I'd say eNom's w/in their "rights" to
deactivate the domain name in question. Just wish they gave
your client the chance to defend themselves, though.

What options did eNom give you, if any, about this matter?

 

[diverge]

Here's some more interesting news: There is NOTHING in NAMECHEAP's agreement forbidding spam EXCEPT as it pertains to their WhoisGuard product, which was not active on this domain. ENOM's policy is clear about their zero-tolerance, but NameCheap's is NOT. I know now that NameCheap is a reseller for eNom, but honestly I did NOT know this at the time I registered this domain on behalf of my client. So I guess I'm saying that NameCheap is probably somewhat at fault here for not passing this along to the end user.

Based on your reply about your client's domain using eNom's
DNS servers that time, I'd say eNom's w/in their "rights" to
deactivate the domain name in question. Just wish they gave
your client the chance to defend themselves, though.

Maybe shutting down DNS services, but NOT putting the domain on REGISTRAR-HOLD. This prevents me from even changing the DNS elsewhere.

What options did eNom give you, if any, about this matter?

None whatsoever -- hence their "Zero-tolerance" policy. See email from abuse@enom.com above. I am still pursuing and will keep you updated.

 

[Dave Zan]

Here's some more interesting news: There is NOTHING in NAMECHEAP's agreement forbidding spam EXCEPT as it pertains to their WhoisGuard product, which was not active on this domain. ENOM's policy is clear about their zero-tolerance, but NameCheap's is NOT. I know now that NameCheap is a reseller for eNom, but honestly I did NOT know this at the time I registered this domain on behalf of my client. So I guess I'm saying that NameCheap is probably somewhat at fault here for not passing this along to the end user.



Maybe shutting down DNS services, but NOT putting the domain on REGISTRAR-HOLD. This prevents me from even changing the DNS elsewhere.



None whatsoever -- hence their "Zero-tolerance" policy. See email from abuse@enom.com above. I am still pursuing and will keep you updated.

Sam, I just remembered someone from Namecheap also visits
webhostingtalk. I PMd him and told him about your post in that
thread I posted here.

Keep us posted! Good luck!

 

[diverge]

Update: Here is the email correspondence that took place today on this issue:

eNom, Inc,

This domain does not send spam. It send targeted emails
to an opt-in list of ~150,000 pastors and churches across the U.S. While
there are occasional complaints, these emails were procured through
legitimate marketing channels and are definitely not "spam". The reason for
these complaints are that many addresses we send to are "general mailbox"
addresses, and volunteer turnover within churches is such that well meaning
individuals perceive our opt-in emails as spam.

Please produce records of the complaints that you have received so that we
can have the opportunity to produce the proper evidence to refute their
claims of spamming, and reactivate this domain.

The hold has been removed from this domain name. Please make sure that
your database is updated so that only recipients who want your email receive
it. Further complaints may result in the permanent disabling of this domain
name.

Regards,
eNom, Inc.

Note: eNom never produced the records of the complaints, which will just cause further trouble when these same subscribers receive the next email.

Hmm.... well, seems this issue is closed for now. But I am still keeping my eyes open for a replacement registrar. It's not that I approve of spam, but I just don't see how eNom can justify this type of action. And if they are willing to step to the plate on UCE, who says they won't overstep their reach on other questionable activity as well?

 

[theparrot]

What is amazing to me is neither of these two 'anti-spam' registrars seems to provide a way to put spf records in if you use their dns services.

 

[Dave Zan]

What is amazing to me is neither of these two 'anti-spam' registrars seems to provide a way to put spf records in if you use their dns services.

Maybe because they want to see some sort of accreditation that
spf is the standard to use from an authoritative body like, say,
IETF, for example? Although SPF is fast becoming an acceptable
method, as far as I know it's still under study, aside from the
Sender-ID proposal.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I got a feeling I am somewhere...).

 

[diverge]

SPF doesn't stop spamming, it just stops spoofing.

 

[Dave Zan]

SPF doesn't stop spamming, it just stops spoofing.

Specifically, yes. :blush:

 

[theparrot]

Right, which should help you be able to defend yourself from false spamming claims. Which since these registeres are suspending domains for claims, it would seem fair they give you the abilty to reduce the chances of your domains being used by spammers as spoofed addresses.

 

[diverge]

Understood. I just wanted to clarify so no one out there thinks that SPF is some god-send technology that is going to get rid of spam. Domains are cheap (even today you can register 100 (25x4 and counting) free .infos. So why would a spammer (not to be confused with a phisher) spoof when they can just use disposable domains?