nanog mailing list archives
Re: no whois info ?
From: Janet Sullivan <ciscogeek () bgp4 net>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:32:13 -0700
I wonder what % of domains that have their whois info hidden or "private" are throwaway spam domains... Some number approaching 100% I would bet. It would be nice to somehow incorporate this into a SpamAssassin check somehow.
Please don't, there are legitimate reasons to have private domain names. One of the main reasons my domains are private is I got tired of the spam and direct snail mail I got to the contact addresses. Also, some people, like incest survivors, feel better not having their name out there as an owner of a related support site.
Taking away the usefulness of private registrations won't stop the spammers. It will just impact the privacy of the regular folks.
Current thread:
- no whois info ? Mike Tancsa (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? william(at)elan.net (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Mike Tancsa (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Jeff Rosowski (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Mike Tancsa (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Daniel Senie (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Mike Tancsa (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Ken Gilmour (Dec 10)
- Re: no whois info ? Janet Sullivan (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Mike Tancsa (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Rich Kulawiec (Dec 11)
- Re: no whois info ? Janet Sullivan (Dec 11)
- Re: no whois info ? william(at)elan.net (Dec 12)
- Re: no whois info ? Janet Sullivan (Dec 12)
- Re: no whois info ? william(at)elan.net (Dec 12)
- Re: no whois info ? Michael . Dillon (Dec 13)
- Re: no whois info ? Robert E . Seastrom (Dec 13)
- Re: no whois info ? Jack Bates (Dec 13)
- Re: no whois info ? william(at)elan.net (Dec 09)
- Re: no whois info ? Rich Kulawiec (Dec 12)