nanog mailing list archives
Re: Interesting new dns failures
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:26:56 -0400
At 5:30 AM +0000 5/21/07, Fergie wrote:
Why not? The Registrars seem sto being doing a great job of expediting the activation of new domains -- why can't they de-activate them just as quickly when they find out they are being used for malicious purposes? The "business interests" of the registrars, that's why.
Not to defend those doing malicious things, or service providers that consciously hide such for money, but there is another reason why removal/blockage/filtering/etc doesn't always happen in a timely manner, and that's the legal liability. In larger organizations, the potential for liability can result in a real administrative burden of paperwork before getting the green light to terminate. I don't know if that's the case here, but would recommend against jumping to greed as the only possible reason for hesitation in moving against such folks. /John
Current thread:
- Re: Interesting new dns failures, (continued)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Jason Frisvold (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Roger Marquis (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Valdis . Kletnieks (May 21)
- Use of portions of 44.0.0.0/8? Neal R (May 21)
- Re: Use of portions of 44.0.0.0/8? Andy Brezinsky (May 21)
- OK - functioning administration of 44.0.0.0/8 Neal R (May 21)
- Re: OK - functioning administration of 44.0.0.0/8 Harald Koch (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Roger Marquis (May 21)
- Re: Use of portions of 44.0.0.0/8? Joel Jaeggli (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Jason Frisvold (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures John Curran (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow (May 21)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures David Ulevitch (May 22)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow (May 22)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow (May 24)
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Roger Marquis (May 24)