On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:10:13 -0500, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My mistake; I was referring to the discussion, collaboration, and > > creation, not the spread. > > You mentioned DDoS attacks below. I don't believe that use is a form of > discussion, collaboration, or creation. > > > Some say we should, but I am not one of those. My point was to get rid > > of the most well established tool (and easiest to use) for these types > > of activities. > > Any tool can be used by anyone for good or evil. If one knows the > kiddies are all hanging out on IRC, then you can get a lot of good info > about what their new attacks are by loitering on their channels. > > > > What's the difference? IRC is so well established for the type of > > activity I am referring to. > > As it is established for many productive things. Ever check out > freenode? > > > > I'll leave the piracy battle for someone else - I just mentioned it as > > a part of the problem. > > If you aren't prepared to defend it on this list, better not mention it. > =) > > > > Sure netcat is an alternative, but which one is easier to use? > > Um... netcat, or raw tcp sockets. I would argue it is easier to write > something that just opens a connection, and listens for commands to come > back, than something that has to speak IRC. Speaking IRC has its own > advantages, but in the absence of it, it is still trivial to manage a > bot net. > > > I thought I would throw out the idea. If you want to call me a troll, > > then so be it, but don't get your panties in a knot over the whole > > thing > > Pardon my harsh reply. It wasn't personal, and is directed only at your > reasoning. It is a similar reasoning that leads to the slippery slope > toward censorship.
No worries. Case closed. :) ...D _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
