Proposal to end Spam for good!

[legal]

You like to make comments on matters you are ill prepared to comment upon.

You link to a 'registration agreement'.

See how little you know about the 'facts' of the matter to inject your 'opinion' publicly into this matter?

The reason I say that, is the matter involved HUNDREDS of transferred domains, names that have operated for years on the net. The 'transfer agreement' that was in place at the time of the 'transfers' did not refer to the registration agreement you linked to and it had no cancelation provisions.

So your ingorant remarks about 'reading relative agreements' is erroneous. The agreement you linked to had nothing to do with my matter.

Also, there is nothing in the RA (registration agreement) that empowers GD to hold hostage domains and ask for hundreds of dollars in reinstatement fees.

Now that everyone knows GD is doing this, they should stay away from GD.

GD is using blackmail to bill domain owners hundreds of dollars per domain to get them back if GD decides you sent email to an opt in list if they get a complaint.

Jerks that like to harass domain operators are openly telling people to complain to GD to have domains taken down.

Their service reps are publicly stating which domains they have 'hit' or 'canceled'.

GD is under criminal investigation and if you think they have the right to charge hundreds of dollars to domain owners over ONE COMPLAINT due to that provision you need to go back to law school.

No where does the agreement give GD the right to charge cancelation reinstatement fees which is what the whole thing is about.

Also, being the only registrar trying to cancel domains with NO THIRD PARTY interjection or review is INSANITY.

Anyway, there's a class action against GoDaddy forming over this matter. Maybe you need to ask their CEO to represent them.

Since you think their RA gives them the right to cancel any domain they want.

Just remember, my matter didn't involve 'registrations' it involved transfers and that agreement doesn't given them any such cancelation rights.

I'm not responding to this thread either in the future, my time is far too valuable to be arguing with ill-informed attorneys that think they know facts about a matter they are not in reality prepared to comment upon.

 

[legal]

....

 

[jberryhill]

it seems like they could cancel my domains based on highly subjective criteria any time they felt like it.

Correct. Which is a good reason to avoid doing business with them.

I am sorry that "legal" takes these discussions so personally. You are absolutely correct that I do not know, nor do I care about, the specific facts of your situation. If you want legal advice for your situation, hire a lawyer. However, their current terms of service do state broad powers to screw around with domain names based on spamming allegations.

 

[legal]

The matter was resolved, the names were transferred away.

GD lost thousands of dollars per year for allowing their employee to email me one threat about a matter that was not spam.

Upon getting a threatening letter from GD to cancel a name, GD was informed that such action would result in a criminal complaint and an immediate legal action.

GD agreed to allow all names to be transferred away since I would not 'agree' to giving them such powers.

The way GD handled the matter is the problem, they send you a YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 24 HOURS or your domain will be canceled.

In my matter the name was for a well known site that had used OPT IN email for years.

GD expected us to supply them with opt-in info from years ago.

1. It violated customer privacy issues and 2. there is no provision allowing them to demand such info.

Bottomline GD lost many thousands of dollars in revenue per year since they don't know how to ask a client politely if they get a complaint.

I'm sure many people spam and they deserve to be treated harshly. I don't spam and the way GD jumped on me was pathetic. Now, since I've started looking at some others complaining about GD there are now several of us that are now joining to go after GD in a class action for threatening larger domain name owners with cancelations and reinstatement fees.

I myself 'settle' matters when they pop up.

If you send me a C&D letter you better have good reason to.

If you use a play on my Trade Marks you will get a C&D letter and then a WIPO complaint.

If you threaten to steal my property you will get sued.

I don't care what provisions are in any contract, theft is not legal and any provision that gives anyone the right to 'steal' property from another party is an illegal provision and any court would strike down the GD provision.

It's too broad and the way they use it selectively to punish and harass has opened up an actionable cause against them.

I don't really want to continue this. I'm far too busy.

At least you can agree, GD wants to have the right to punish people with no recourse as to a third party, etc.

That is heavy handed and against the spirit of the Icaan UDRP.

GD should be stripped of their right to be a registrar. They've asked Icaan to do that to NetSol didn't they.

NetSol doesn't try to steal domains like GD does.

GD needs to be hit hard with a bunch of litigation to put them in their place.

If you do business with GD move your names now.

 

[jberryhill]

At least you can agree, GD wants to have the right to punish people with no recourse as to a third party, etc.

Yes, that is what their agreement purports to give them the power to do.

any court would strike down the GD provision.

That's an open question. Its existence alone is reason enough to avoid GD, since it is an invitation to third party abuse.

 

[legal]

The question would be, does the GD RA (registration agreement) violate the spirit of the Icaan rules that are suppose to govern domain names. When Icaan makes it hard for anyone to lose a domain name without review by WIPO or another court or arbitration body, the mere fact that GD is being judge/jury/executioner for such undefined matters as spam, makes the provision one of bad faith.

Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it a defacto right, the provision still has to be 'legal'.

Since GD is under Icaan governance, the provision would have to be viewed by a court as if it is within the spirit of higher law that GD is bound to, that being the rules of Icaan.

I don't think any court would say that provision is what Icaan intended to empower registrars with.

But until someone challenges it legally, GD can try to do what they will.

The main thing is letting others know about what GD is trying to do.

If you 'use' your domains, stay clear of GD, since anyone can complain about what you do and GD can then say your content is this or that or your email was spam.

GD is in effect a net nazi, the sooner major domain name owners find it out, the sooner they will leave GD in droves.

Then GD might change the way they do business.

 

[gogol]

my spam killer is spambully. The day I installed Spam Bully was last day when I saw an unwanted email in my Inbox...

 

[DNGeeks]

Your proposal is terrible.

I have no idea what s/mime is (btw, nowhere in my post did I claim to be the authority on e-mail, www, or tcp/ip), but if it's important to users, there will be a way to make it work.

And you think that the real experts out there haven't thought of something like this and then said "people won't like this, the internet is about decentralization of services". Never mind the fact that they're experts and they haven't figured it out yet or figured out a way that is acceptable to all the major parties out there.

Let me share the latest technique spammers use to harvest e-mail addresses with you. The harvesting of addresses from web pages is now old news, and has been for some time. What they do is send messages to thousands of random e-mail addresses at each domain, and ones that don't bounce are recorded as valid addresses, and used again and again, and then sold to other Spammers.

That's the "latest" technique they use? Dictionary attacks are probably older than you are. Usenet harvesting, script harvesting, dictionary attacks, fake sites, real sites, digital phone books, mailing lists, yahoo lists, stupid people using CC instead of BCC, spam lists, cd's of 500k email addresses for $5, auctions, forum member lists and almost anywhere else you put your email address, they'll get it from if they can access it in any way.

I have never heard of a case of someone faking the IP address they are connecting from unless they actually hack into the host server.

You've never heard of spoofing an address? You weren't around for the glory days of DOS'ing your friends off the net just for fun? You never fired up your box/modem and stole someone's MAC address so you could steal their IP and knock them offline and call them up and ask them what they're doing right now?

5) All ISP's and organizations running mail servers will configure their
incoming mail servers to reject all incoming mail which is not sent by one
of the CERS central relay servers, so if someone tries to send a message
directly from their mail server to someone else's, the receiving server will
not even accept their connection

I see you need to learn a little about tcp/ip too. You can't not accept a connection at a webserver or even a router. You must read the packet, and then determine what to do. Well this brings in another exploit that is very common today, which is the DDOS. Get a network of 10,000 machines and bombard the server with requests. Sure you can block this traffic at a router, but it takes time, it still eats bandwidth even when it's blocked (you still read the packet), uses resources, costs a bunch of money, might cause you to lose your backbone or have your IP null routed and pisses you off big time.

this will minimize server load for the recipient

Not really, because each packet still needs to be read

Passing a law requiring the above parameters to be followed by ISP's would be imperative for getting this accomplished, as without such a law, it would be very difficult to get voluntary compliance from ISP's and other infrastructure providers involved.

A law where? In the US? How are you going to enforce this law in Brazil? Or China? Or Russia? You can't. And no international company will allow their emails to be dumped just because the sender isn't in the US.

All servers set up to send e-mail will send their messages through the
official CERS relay servers, as sending mail directly will be rejected by
the recipient.

So now relays are good? And mail isn't sent directly. Mail is sent from a computer, to an SMTP server to the recipients mail server. Add in a ton of routers along the way too. What is the key there? The SMTP server. Everyone needs one to send mail (not really, but most people don't know that) and if 80% of those SMTP servers were fixed to stop relaying then the spam issue would be lessened. And what about sending mail to user@ipaddress? Some machines will accept this format of direct communication still.

CERS will match the IP's of all messages being relayed through its
servers with the senders' e-mail addresses, and messages with the address
not matching the IP or an unregistered address being rejected by the CERS
server.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this one, but what about dynamic IP addresses? Another scourge on the net for spam issues.

Last but not least, enforcement. If anyone sends unsolicited e-mail, the
recipient can now find out who it was by use of the CERS online whois query
tool, which will return e-mail address owner's information in real time
(similar to the WHOIS system for domain names).

And this is the one that should scare the bejeebus out of everyone. So long anonymity! No more anonymous news tips, no more whistle blowers sending email in the night exposing whatever it is they are exposing. You send an email now and anyone who gets the message can find out who sent it because the email address is "registered" and the sender gets slapped with a lawsuit and a gag order faster than you can say "this was a bad idea".

So what can be done? Probably the EASIEST thing to do is to write a new email protocol and introduce it over the next 5-10 years just like ipv6. Until someone decides to get a group together and figure it out for a few years and then make a proposal and get it accepted and then try to get companies to impliment it the best thing you can do is a whitelist.

Please before you propose these kinds of things, learn more about the protocol(s) you're talking about and learn about why the internet is the way it is. Yes it's broke, but it still works mostly.

 

[jberryhill]

All DNS queries go through the root servers, and that system seems to work just fine.

It works fine because most DNS queries DO NOT go anywhere near the root servers.

If every resolution of even ebay.com actually involved a root server and the .com zone server, there would be a problem. Zone data is cached at multiple levels to insulate the root servers and the TLD servers from this sort of thing.

 

[Ovicide]

It works fine because most DNS queries DO NOT go anywhere near the root servers.

Right.

On page 35 of DNS and Bind, 4th ed.,:

...caching obviates a name server's need to query the root name servers to answer queries it can't answer locally. This means that it's not as dependent on the roots, and the roots won't suffer as much from all its queries.

The original poster claims to run an ISP, so he might want to invest in a copy of that book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596001584/