On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 22:37 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Moving this from private to dev.
>
> On 8/26/2011 5:23 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> > then maybe we can contact some of these 'abusers' and see if they
> > want to test patch.
> > (its NOT spam, its transactional email.. we aren't trying to sell
> > them anything)
>
> I don't believe this is spam. We have a business relationship since
> they are using sa-update
Hah! I believe this is in line with my previous "and occasionally vent"
introduction for the non users@ followers. ;)
For perspective: Shortly before that whole mirror incident and offer by
Michael, he vented about Spamhaus external service provider to falsely
poke him about (ab)using Spamhaus and getting the paid stream.
This scenario, IMHO, is completely different. We wouldn't complain at
all. We don't want money. We won't threaten them to be blocked.
We DO would let them know that (a) they have a severe configuration
issue on their end, and (b) we discovered it. That's it. If they
listen, less bandwidth for us, and a problem fixed for them they didn't
even found out about.
So, yes, that would not be spam in any way. And I don't care about
"transactional" or whatever. That is the very reason email addresses for
tech and admin are in whois.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
