Domains by Proxy

Whois privacy protection

I’ve talked about using privacy protection on domains in the past (here, here, here, here, and here). Short version (if you don’t want to check all the old links) is that privacy protection for commercial domains is bad, that’s what spammers do and legitimate email marketers should not hide domains behind privacy protection services. I still believe all of these things.
What I’ve never really addressed is that I think privacy protection services are appropriate in some cases and are a reasonable protective measure for individuals. Over on Spamresource, Al wrote up a great post today about whois privacy protection.
Sometimes people do need anonymity and privacy online. Trusting a registrar’s privacy protection service is probably not your best bet for that. Like Al, we’ve stood in as a “privacy service” for friends and colleagues. It was our name on the domain registrations, and we could contact the appropriate people as needed. They trusted us to forward only the important stuff and we trusted them not to do bad things. This trust doesn’t scale.
Privacy protection services are used by a lot of bad actors to hide their involvement. Companies and commercial entities are tarring their own reputations using privacy protection services.
No real pull quote here, all of Al’s points are too good. So go read the whole thing.

Anon whois information

I’ve talked before about reasons not to hide commercial domains behind whois proxies. Al found another one: if you use a proxies you cannot list your domains with abuse.net. Al has a good write up of whois, and why this is important. So go there and read it.

Private whois records hide spammers and help bring down a registrar

I’ve talked in the past about how many spam filters, ISPs and blocklists treat domains that are registered behind privacy protection. I’ve written about how many commercial domains behind privacy protection are used for fraud. I’ve written about multiple legal cases where the courts ruled against companies using privacy protected domains in email. I’ve even gone so far as to claim hiding domains behind privacy protection is what spammers do.
Legitimate email marketers do not hide their domains behind privacy protection services.
Spammers absolutely do hide behind privacy protection services. And because of how privacy protection works, we really don’t know which domains are used by one spammer versus another spammer. ICANN gave us a little bit of insight into just how many domains a spammer registers when they terminated Dynamic Dolphin (pdf link). This is a situation that has been brewing for most of 2013. I wrote about the notice of contract breach back in October. This morning Brian Krebs wrote a blog post saying that ICANN had terminated the agreement with Dynamic Dolphin for failing to cure the breach as noticed back in October.
If you read through the timeline, ICANN has some interesting information about privacy protected domains at Dynamic Dolphin. Data about privacy protected domains was requested from the very beginning.

ICANN goes after Dynamic Dolphin

ICANN sent a letter to domain registrar Dynamic Dolphin notifying them of their non-compliance with the ICANN Registrar Agreement.
HT: Neil Schwartzman
(Today appears to be retro-blogging day. First I blog about s.1618 then I blog about Scott Richter.)

CAN SPAM ruling against whois privacy protection

A number of bloggers (Venkat B., John L. and Rebecca T.) have mentioned ZooBuh, Inc. v. Better Broadcasting, LLC (No.: 2:11cv00516-DN (D. Utah May 31, 2013)) recently.
In summary of the case is that ZooBuh is an ISP that has sued Better Broadcasting for spamming in violation of CAN SPAM. Their case hinged on the receipt of more than 12,000 emails from Better Broadcasting, LLC. ZooBuh said these emails caused the following harm

Internet fraud and private whois records

The Verge has a long article about Internet Marketing and how much fraud is perpetrated by people who label themselves Internet Marketers.
It was interesting, but I didn’t think it was necessarily relevant to email marketers until I saw this quote from Roberto Anguizola at the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection.