Whoa – oh no, Zoho: Domain name no-show deals CRM biz, 40m punters a crushing blow CRM biz Zoho left millions of customers fuming on Monday when it briefly lost control of its critical Zoho.com domain name, bringing its services to a grinding halt. Around 9am Pacific Time, its staff freaked out after the Zoho.com homepage came up blank. The domain name had been blocked, a message from the company's registrar …
On Marketo's case it was clearly due to the company's own failings while on Zoho's case, although you can argue that the company could/should have protected itself better, it was an obvious mistake from the registrar.
Why are you mixing the two then?
FAILS are well deserved all-round. This problem often happens just because the contact info has expired. Part of the problem is management complacency plus departures / firings and outsourcing at the client, plus sheer indifference at the registrar.
_____
So who exactly was to blame for Marketo losing its dotcom?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/29/marketo_network_solutions/
_____
In financial services there are laws about having emergency contact info that's up to date. But when its not mandated you tend to see clusterfcks. Even Microsoft are on this list more than once:
_____
https://www.hover.com/blog/8-sites-that-really-shouldve-auto-renewed-their-domain-names/
ZOHO claiming that they don't have spam problems is proof that they have spam problems. They're clearly not reading very many complaints.
I blacklisted ZOHO's network in June 2018 because phishers were putting me on their mailing lists. Tierra has a valid complaint that being able to build mass mailing lists without any validation of the sender or receiver is a system vulnerability.
From what I hear from my circle of friends, this is a targeted attack on Zoho to damage their reputation. Tierra's credibility (if any) is at stake now.
Spam is a cat and mouse game - both good and bad guys are evolving constantly. I still get Spam in google and yahoo in my inbox. They all try their best classify and send them to spam folder, yet they fail at times.
Since when has it been up the the registrar to decide it can just disable someone's domain based on a few report of spam?
If they are going to do this, without giving the domain owner chance to respond. It becomes trivial for people to disrupt competitors business by reporting them for spam and getting their domains taken down.
I have never heard of Tierra, and a Google search for them you don't find them until page 2 which isn't a great result for a registrar that can't even get themselves on page 1 of Google for a search of their own business name. They are more than likely someone working out of their home office, reselling domain names and hosting offered by a someone else as their 'business' address is a PO box.
This post has been deleted by its author
This domain loss also happened to a small charity I am involved with. No warning, one day there it was, gone! Most of my colleagues there are not computer people, and I do not want to be the computer slave of every organisation I join.
Most other businesses are used to the polite reminder, followed if necessary by the cough-up-in-seven-days letter.
I couldn't imagine the big, low cost registrars thinking twice about shutting down a domain, because they give them away free, or only charge $1 or whatever! Even at $35 you only have to manually process one or two complaints before the regstration service for the domain loses money.
Handling complaints and contacting registrants costs money. Seems to me that $35 per year should be the cost of registration - maybe there should be an additional fee for each spam complaint handled that has compelling proof against the domain owner. The ultimate cost should (as in all things) represent the work that goes into it.
jira.domain.com, now offers something.jira.domain.com The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
