Network Solutons/Web.com blockage

[empoweringmedia 0]

Does anyone know what's going on with Network Solutions/Web.com and what appears to be a major outgoing spam problem?

Here is one example:

http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...p=209.17.115.42

We use spamcop to score our first level of filtering and currently blocking their network because of this. I do not want to whitelist their pool of outgoing IPs because I also see evidence of spam originating from their network as well. We have other methods to whitelist incoming domains on a per domain basis, but don't want to have to resort to that method.

[SpamCopAdmin 0]

Unfortunately, a lot of their servers are sending large amounts of spam.

They have contacted us, so I know they are aware of the problem, but that's all I know.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

- Service[at]Admin.SpamCop.net -

.

[rmehle 0]

Unfortunately, a lot of their servers are sending large amounts of spam.

They have contacted us, so I know they are aware of the problem, but that's all I know.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

- Service[at]Admin.SpamCop.net -

.

The amount of spam that I have received originating from Web.com's servers in the past month is unbelievable -- about one a business day. They have all been either arrantly fraudulent -- as if from, to name a few, Wal-Mart, LinkedIn, Facebook, the Better Better Business Bureau, UPS, a "radiology clinic," and today's latest, GreetingBee, a "seasonal" fraud -- or with subject lines such as "Hi" or "With best wishes" and containing nothing but embedded links to god-knows-what. (I never click on them.) Moreover, I have not received a single piece of spam during this time via another ISP.

I have reported every one of these e-mails to Web.com through SpamCop, to no apparent avail; the spam continues unabated. This makes me suspicious that Web.com is knowingly selling its services to spam operations. With the company having acquired Network Solutions late last year, I can only wonder if there is some kind of connection, as NS -- through which our law firm's domain name is registered -- is integrated into Web.com's corporate structure. Indeed, as I attempted to reply to an e-mail from an associate yesterday, Verizon blocked the e-mail as spam, apparently a consequence of Network Solution's now being on a Verizon blocking list! (See also http://supportem.com/blog/707/blocked-emai...work-solutions/, the motivation for the first comment in this chain.)

My next step will be to send a letter to Web.com's CEO, David Brown (see http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537689), informing him of this situation -- if, unbelievably, he isn't already aware of it. I will also point out that Washington, D.C., where we are located, has a statute, the "spam Deterrence Act of 2008," that provides a $500-per-spam-e-mail penalty applicable to ISPs that host spam. Several other jurisdictions have similar laws that give private rights of action -- unlike the federal "Can-spam Act of 2003," which permits its enforcement only by the Federal Trade Commission. [Note to SpamCop Admin: For some reason, the word "spam" by itself cannot be given an initial capital letter in these posts.]

I would be interested if any other SpamCop user has had similar experiences with spam from Web.com.

[turetzsr 0]

Hi, rmehle!

<snip>

[Note to SpamCop Admin: For some reason, the word "spam" by itself cannot be given an initial capital letter in these posts.]

<snip>

...Nothing to do with SpamCop Admin (Don D'Minion, a SpamCop employee), it's action by the Forum Admin (a volunteer not employed by SpamCop). See SpamCopWiki: SPAMhormelTM for more an explanation (yes, perhaps overkill to disallow Proper case <g>).

[rmehle 0]

Thanks, Steve -- I guess the Congress and the D.C. City Council have no fear of Hormel!

On the subject of my earlier post, it would seem that, unfortunately, the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes ISPs from suit under statutes like that of D.C. See, e.g., Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 523, 536 (D. Md. 2006). A bloody shame.

Hi, rmehle!...Nothing to do with SpamCop Admin (Don D'Minion, a SpamCop employee), it's action by the Forum Admin (a volunteer not employed by SpamCop). See SpamCopWiki: SPAMhormelTM for more an explanation (yes, perhaps overkill to disallow Proper case <g>).

[turetzsr 0]

<snip>

On the subject of my earlier post, it would seem that, unfortunately, the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes ISPs from suit under statutes like that of D.C. See, e.g., Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 523, 536 (D. Md. 2006). A bloody shame.

...Wow, you not only have no voting representative in the US congress (if con is the opposite of pro, what is the opposite of progress? <g>) but your city laws are overridden by federal statute passed by that congress (and, probably, quasi-judicial federal commission rules)!

[DavidT 0]

Perhaps a related issue: Over the last few weeks, I've seen some odd blocking of inbound e-newsletters at NetSol-hosted domains. I've not seen these odd delivery block messages from them before. Of course, that's backwards, in that their problem is with outbound crap, not inbound, but NetSol is not known for high competency or intelligence, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were screwing up and blocking inbound stuff when they should be doing the opposite. Sorry about my very negative take on NetSol, but they're STILL over-charging gullible people for domain names, many years after their government-enabled monopoly ended!

DT