Jim writes: > Correct me if I'm wrong, the principle disruption -- and I want to > emphasize disruption here -- I've seen is that a particular spam > indicator no longer works as expected. Is there more to this than that?
You could make many random DNS requests of a DNS server and flush the cache, producing a partial denial of service (or at least a drop in performance). If every single request for a domain produces an address, existent or not, it takes up more continuing resources than a request that produces an error. No?
