[anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!

Suresh

I don’t think many registrars are trying to abdicate responsibility 
BUT

The hosting provider for a domain name has a lot more control over things than the registrar.

As a registrar of record for a domain name I only have the “nuclear option”. 

Compromised sites account for a lot of the spam we see coming from our network (or at least trying to).

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://michele.irish 
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845







On 28/09/2015 13:42, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

>Let me introduce you to, say, fast flux botnets that skip from one IP to another in seconds
>
>IPs matter. So do domains. So do nameservers.  So do [a bunch of other things]
>
>Registrars can’t abdicate their responsibility by claiming spam is entirely related to IP addresses.
>
>> On 28-Sep-2015, at 5:50 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
>> 
>> Spam is not a domain thing, it is an IP thing.
>> 
>> So why are we focused on domain names? a name is nothing,
>> it cannot route, a number routes.
>
>