Len's out for blood and a big part of me agrees... no point in being nice at all to the idiots that are KILLING us with their crap. A concern that weighs heavy on me is accuracy of the system... if Lycos screws up, the outright saturation of an innocent site seems a little unfair. But 85% vs. 100% is a little silly. Maybe they should "ramp up" the saturation level the longer the site is in their database, perhaps setting a target for new entries at 50% and ramping up daily until 100% is reached in 7 days... just thinking out loud... but this would give "innocent" sites a chance to respond to the spike in traffic at the 50% mark, while not killing them until they ignored it and/or repeated requests to stop spamming or something.
I guess I'm too nice... especially in Len's eyes! :) Light them fires... > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Lycos screensaver tackles spam websites > > > > >No, we are not talking about a DDos attack. Lycos is not attempting to > >use up the resources of the spammers website. > > of course they are. Not ALL 100%, not a total DoS, but eating 85% of the > b/w is a denial of service. > > > Rather they are looking at consuming a considerable portion of those > > resources. > > aka, denying (quality of) service. > > > By the statistics they are showing it appears they may have set that > > threshold at 85%. > > pretty severe, but why not nuke em totally? Since when do > spammers have > such civilized regard for our MXs or for the general operation > of Internet? > > >No, the picket anaolgy still holds because this is an organized > protests > >with what appear to be "reasonable" rules and safeguards put in place. > > Since when does "reasonable" apply to an all out war that we legit users > and all of internet have been losing for years? > > > This is nothing like some miscreant hi-jacking unwitting web surfers > > machines to launch an attack against a "innocent" victim, but rather a > > coordinated protests against demonstrated law (rule) breakers > > Exactly. It's a defensive, reactive COUNTER-attack targetted > specifically > at the attackers. Point their own DDoS weapons back at them and nuke em! > > >Therefore, if another site (or two, or three) starts doing the > same thing > >then Lycos would merely throttle back the amount of packets they are > >sending at it to keep the the target site at 85% saturation. > > But if the other counter-attackers consume over 85% by > themselves, Lycos' > "nice" participation is marginalized, irrelevant. > > >That of course does not address the issue if someone else does the same > >thing and is not as "reasonable" as Lycos is being in allowing > the site to > >continue to have 15% of capacity to continue their operations. > Certainly > >sounds like Len would be in favor of the 100% attack > > yep, nuke em. > > > that he is accusing Lycos of doing (and which they are not). > > I don't "accuse" Lycos of any crime or misbehavior. > > 85% is "nice" number that might work, but the websites are still > functioning in the service of spammers. Why be nice to spammers? > > hmm, 85% is roughly the %age of SMTP traffic that is spam. > > Len > > _____________________________________________________________________ > http://IMGate.MEIway.com : free anti-spam gateway, runs on > 1000's of sites > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
