[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[nanog] Avalanche botnet takedown
- Subject: [nanog] Avalanche botnet takedown
- From: jhellenthal at dataix.net (Jason Hellenthal)
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:30:09 -0600
- In-reply-to: <20161202112830.GA16448@pepino>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <20161202112830.GA16448@pepino>
If I could have it my way, I would say no gTLD?s should be allowed to transmit any email messages whatsoever. And force them to either use something like sendgrid.com or to purchase a primary .com, .org, .net .co.uk whatever etc..
But thats just me.
It?s not a nice world but it is just the world we live in today.
> On Dec 2, 2016, at 05:28, Hugo Salgado-Hern?ndez <hsalgado at nic.cl> wrote:
> According to a 2015 paper, 85% of new gTLDs domains was some form
> of parking, defensive redirect, unused, etc:
> On 15:02 01/12, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>> 99% ? That's a pretty high figure there.
>> Jason Hellenthal,
>> Systems & Network Admin,
>> Mobile: 0x9CA0BD58,
>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 14:56, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:34:26PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
>>> [...] 800,000 domain names used to control it.
>> 1. Which is why abusers are registrars' best customers and why
>> (some) registrars work so very hard to support and shield them.
>> 2. As an aside, I've been doing a little research project for a
>> few years, focused on domains. I've become convinced that *at least*
>> 99% of domains belong to abusers: spammers, phishers, typosquatters,
>> malware distributors, domaineers, combinations of these, etc.
>> In the last year, I've begun thinking that 99% is a serious underestimate.
>> (And it most certainly is in some of the new gTLDs.)