It seems to me that people are getting rather hot headed about this. First, I would suggest just emailing yourself on a private registration. I did and it seems to work fine for me at least:
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.virtcolo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22923740535 for <e...@virtcolo.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 03:15:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.virtcolo.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.virtcolo.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jRDEcjvQFy5 for <e...@virtcolo.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 03:15:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wgfwd1.registrar-servers.com (wgfwd1.registrar-servers.com [198.187.30.106]) by mail.virtcolo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D1C740225 for <e...@virtcolo.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 03:15:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from se15-1.registrar-servers.com (se15.registrar-servers.com [198.54.122.195]) by wgfwd1.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1939F438400 for <bd9ad01da322428a867837d8be5c97fa.prot...@whoisguard.com>; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.virtcolo.com ([149.202.229.102]) by se15.registrar-servers.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from <e...@virtcolo.com>) id 1crwlm-0005x2-A4 for bd9ad01da322428a867837d8be5c97fa.prot...@whoisguard.com; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:15:00 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.virtcolo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C3C7403D6 for <bd9ad01da322428a867837d8be5c97fa.prot...@whoisguard.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 03:14:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.virtcolo.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.virtcolo.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 0isA7ahpW9sh for <bd9ad01da322428a867837d8be5c97fa.prot...@whoisguard.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 03:14:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.15.100] (pool-108-36-147-39.rcmdva.fios.verizon.net [108.36.147.39]) (Authenticated sender: e...@virtcolo.com) by mail.virtcolo.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27069740225 for <bd9ad01da322428a867837d8be5c97fa.prot...@whoisguard.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 03:14:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Spf-Result: se15.registrar-servers.com: domain of virtcolo.com designates 149.202.229.102 as permitted sender Return-Path: <SRS0=aRYx=3D=virtcolo.com=e...@wgfwd1.registrar-servers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.virtcolo.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.virtcolo.com Authentication-Results: mail.virtcolo.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=virtcolo.com Authentication-Results: se15.registrar-servers.com; dmarc=pass header.from=virtcolo.com Authentication-Results: registrar-servers.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=e...@virtcolo.com; dkim=pass header.i=virtcolo.com X-Spamexperts-Class: ham X-Filter-Id: KnJmo4tfeele54viduzbHGCB4oYaH/Pa0d4wRt4qG37f6CJ3Dmf//RsS3GKBp69n6TMRtuze7jv4 0B593892PRwG7yJyuUff+bDbdT/0ryQRPXwwJ32p5pCDy2EtraaYYVOVpWbQXAboTPHwKPzz3k8R ORl+OVJAztEyENTPYsz9zB1CUT/a1/4HfoOJKuztW/wD3DTFWlPrrcxmH9mNrR/+ol8GGI3uMph8 0AgFOpwylnJvSSWSGzxwJkfZ+YdfZAqOr4pzyKMUOtHFF0wohY2C9S/Zo7tGDRYs5O59qTiCS+lf pJyYoVjNZqxKnrzUPdL1EMoMW8/zTnT2L+W6WfY2f/4dY+aO+IBNayT/KqJFgwmpUOXPcPeresbP jCmpECS0B90zgFGW9oyAqXWlHkCe4hOpRrlv4Xt0ya3VuKEf3cxe8H1JdAiuFQJO21pp4pWx7WxW FZpsjT/483ewgl3toPEG/fGZmgE6ZXgIz3K4kZl2bPtXF9Z/mJbYhFjxCol+1svEyUMPsS5XOgTF +uMHxRcZ5omxVEGI9KOoLGbveW5EJGFY5Eu/p9gLeTKbD2xJ4E/yiG4Jlk009VssOuijHBtexFH6 /O9QemIWoIywPduDNQ5QyBe54voyIHq8BDmfufhWvA4658RzDDm6FWhw+cHA6wxnQNyeR6qbwFNx wm4fqVUe9ODPlEtrr0pjK+VCYr5C+J9mgBSnpGSjhQBwUPIBePyoGgBKLbRgnEMIBVkpquQv1IdE +wZZQ+E52bIIuLrySfBrO9cZ201Y5kcDwkhk+7G3L/nMB6iOkh1jujq9OGGTn9YCybIEXCNx/ppy 6ER5PUJpB2yhYlO/L/5wMOeXM+mJK0y2JSjuZBmqIlqPq0vKIWiZYQQDDJK4 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=virtcolo.com; h= x-mailer:date:date:message-id:subject:subject:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:from:from; s=postfix; t=1490490881; x=1492305282; bh=cU296KriU1SwCtYDYTh4M u1f13Zaq4UsUwhvrLaX3SA=; b=Dw25w5+304T75mbl8SLcP+TIVagfZwm47uVQj 7H8SUzHDbFj504tvNVJh/QZlsMsaeQqrnXcr+rAQK6BaWiBV9Y+151u0jSFKcOXT to5ctBMbNewxk4IZqzzJktd1AVDNPIZZl4fDmjYMnARPPkfHpOtJnhTv/0rW9CUr x5NNG8Isu45nyjWvjylThC+nvHTbYuExZ81FzNQR4v7q/vrNGm8jMcCVSu2yjDJS pvvbPhzsFwFpYlZY29cgrtQLGQ6bIrxH4yxt2WfwbLkPzRnd1/wml9frDeeRTNjf 0JYsYc0oZJhzhnovVMvw8YoCatIxXj0y6H9g1fi9kInzfiXVQ== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4f3979e7-a9f3-4a3c-9a87-649239861...@virtcolo.com> X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Report-Abuse-To: s...@se19.registrar-servers.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Received-Spf: pass (se15.registrar-servers.com: domain of virtcolo.com designates 149.202.229.102 as permitted sender) client-ip=149.202.229.102; envelope-from=e...@virtcolo.com; helo=mail.virtcolo.com; Delivered-To: e...@virtcolo.com X-Original-To: e...@virtcolo.com X-Spamexperts-Evidence: Combined (0.20) This was done to a domain registered with NameCheap using WhoisGuard. If there’s a private registration service not forwarding notices, than bring them up and name and shame. I’m sure private registration services deliberately hiding info from abuse/legal is probably a minority. The one thing I’m happy about is that it actually even shows the reseller: Registrar: ENOM, INC. Registrar IANA ID: 48 Reseller: NAMECHEAP.COM If someone is putting in fake info on purchasing the domain name, as I’m sure 100% of spammers do, well it’s about impossible to verify on a domain that going to last what 15 days at times, and probably even less with C&C domain names. Cryptolockers last how long, about 15 minutes? My guess is the main issue is probably a few rogue registrars that are using the refund period with resellers that are getting abused. > On Mar 25, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.email> wrote: > > John, I know you know better than to remove the attribution of the quote > you're replying to ... > > On 03/25/2017 05:20 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> When it comes to privacy I'm much more concerned about the most >>> vulnerable folks not being required to publish their residential address >>> and personal phone number in whois. Those actually can be serious >>> threats, up to and including physical harm for some. >> >> Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people >> is quite low. > > I don't care how low it is. A huge part of ICANN's charter is to provide > protection to consumers, and that includes individual registrants. > >> And, of course, the claim that you need your own second >> level domain to communicate on the Internet is ridiculous. > > I haven't heard anyone claim that. However, I want to make sure that we > remove all the barriers we can to make it *possible*. particularly for those > who are most vulnerable. > >> As I've said many times before, nobody objects to privacy protection >> for names that natural people use for non-commercial purposes. > > Actually, some folks do. > >> The other 99% of of the names, though ... > > I don't have any problem with anyone having privacy that wants it. (See my > response regarding commercial entities' need for privacy on another post.) > > The thing that the NO PRIVACY! people seem to object to is not being able to > reach the real registrant behind the private registration in a timely manner. > That's a simple problem to solve, allow the registrars, who contract with > ICANN, to continue to offer these services; but provide reasonable > requirements to go with them. > > As I pointed out in the other message, the alternative to this is the > creation of domain holding companies that register domains on behalf of those > who want privacy. Those entities will be completely outside of the ICANN > process, and there will not be anything ICANN, or anyone else, will be able > to do to stop them. > > Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
