GoDaddy Follows Qwest With Per Spam Charges

from the how-nice dept

zanek writes "A check of six major Internet Domain Registrars accredited by ICANN turned up one registrar that actually tucks a "per spam" charge into its Terms of Service: GoDaddy. If your domain is associated with a spammer, get your wallet out. Email Battles takes you through normal contract language, then shows you what's way out of line. Aside from this single registrar, we have found only one business this nervy... And you can bet Qwest is paying the price." The Qwest statement obviously refers to their $5 per spam charge. You can understand why these companies put the fees in there, but it's not realistic in a world where machines do get compromised. Shutting accounts down and demanding cleanup makes sense -- but per spam fines seem to go a bit too far.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. Monitor your servers...

    by Claymore - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 10:13am

    "but it's not realistic in a world where machines do get compromised"

    This is true but it should encourage people to patch and monitor their server. Possibly helping people to not be so lax in their security procedures.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  2. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by Marc Michaels - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 10:42am

    Sending your company into potential bankruptcy because someone hacks a server through an exploit seems like a pretty stiff punishment to me.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  3. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by Dave - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 10:49am

    Maybe the company that goes bankrupt over these fines should consider holding M****soft accountable for their faulty Software.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  4. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by Jebrew - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 11:09am

    Because it's really Microsoft that made their server insecure, not their lack of sense. They'd be just as screwed with any of the *nix variants. If you don't know how to secure your crap, you should pay for it.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  5. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by sm - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 11:40am

    Exactly how do you know that MS's faulty software caused the problem? What if the troublesome server is running *nix? MS's fault even then?

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  6. Come on , let's get real here

    by Cara - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 11:46am

    Honestly, even the best security experts out there cannot keep machines completely safe from hackers all the time, it happens, even to the best of us. This is extreme, especially considering a lot of wesite owners can't possibly keep up with and prevent all current and future potential exploits. The hackers will always find new ways in. The only safe computer is unplugged and buried in the back yard.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  7. Re: Come on , let's get real here

    by Rikko - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 12:00pm

    Tunneling hackers with pocket diesel generators...
    No, it needs to be hanging in a tree where you can keep an eye on it.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  8. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by mark - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 12:14pm

    but godaddy is the one who secures the servers, not you.... you only rent space from them.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  9. Blind leading the blind

    by Kevin Mesiab - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 12:20pm

    The latest round of compromises that lead to spamming happens to affect *nix machines running faulty xmlrpc interfaces. (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/71230)

    Its irritating to see linux and unix evangelists putting such blind faith into their systems. Nobody is completely secure. (http://www.insecure.org/sploits_linux.html)

    Even some networked printers, copiers, routers and network apliances are subject to being hacked and misused.

    Do us all a favor and hold your tongue until you know what you're talking about.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  10. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by Kevin Mesiab - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 12:25pm

    GoDaddy only secures your servers if you choose to host with them. GoDaddy's primary business is domain name registration. They only added hosting in 2000 (though they have grown to one of the largest shared hosting providers).

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  11. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by Dam - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 12:52pm

    GoDaddy's primary business is domain name registration.
    And, GoDaddy registers more spammers than many others. When you get a moment, look up the domain some spammers are using, and chances are it'll be registered through GoDaddy

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  12. Re: Come on , let's get real here

    by Claymore - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 1:18pm

    "Honestly, even the best security experts out there cannot keep machines completely safe from hackers all the time, it happens, even to the best of us."

    That's where the monitoring part comes in. If you seen a spike in traffic coming from your server you should probably investigate immediately. Has my site just become more popular or am I now a slave to a spammer?

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  13. Re: Monitor your servers...

    by Michael Vilain - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 1:18pm

    But I've filed SPAMCOP complaints against spammers using GoDaddy registration. They were taken out of DNS eventually when there was sufficient evidence that this wasn't an exploit but someone truely spamming. Network Solutions doesn't do that and the service rep got rather huffy when I told them that on moving my domains to GoDaddy from NSI.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  14. Re: Blind leading the blind

    by CharlesGriswold - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 2:02pm

    Its irritating to see linux and unix evangelists putting such blind faith into their systems. Nobody is completely secure. (http://www.insecure.org/sploits_linux.html)
    True. *nix OS's are, however, more secure than Windows, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is that Windows is a large, homogenous, and very tempting target).
    BSD running on a non-intel-based architecture is about as secure as you can get without paying lots of money.
    If you want rock-solid security, get an AS/400 or System 390 server. Even these are not totally secure, however; social engineering can break any computer security.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

  15. time to leave godaddy

    by admin - Jan 23rd, 2006 @ 2:24pm

    Thanks for the heads up on this. Pissed that I
    just registered another domain with them two days
    ago.. those damn EULA are so long now its like
    MSFT clickthroughs.. who really reads the whole
    thing anymore. shame on me. But I did speak to
    a rep there (who had no idea) just to confirm what
    if anything I had to do on my end to set my account
    up for easy transfer. One really wonders what prick
    at these firms hatches these 'revenue' enhancers.
    I for one will not take the chance of my umbrella
    policy covering a web server (hosted by me or
    elsewhere) never being compromised.

    (reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Add Your Comment

Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Plain Text HTML Save me a cookie
  • Plain Text: A CRLF will be replaced by break <br> tag, all other allowable HTML is intact
  • HTML: No formatting of any kind is done without explicitly being written in
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <p> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Close
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Plain Text HTML Save me a cookie
Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Related Stories
Close
E-mail It