The point behind the initiative is not to attack the email senders,
but the source of money. If the spam websites are never up, then the
recipients cannot buy products advertised. Without the sales, there
are not finances to support the spamming. If spammers can't make
money sending email,
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I'd be curious to hear what NANOG readers thoughts are on
this.
It would be interesting to see how this fares when faced with a whole
lot of router acls that got put in to filter out nachi
srs
At 09:39 AM 29/11/2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I'd be curious to hear what NANOG readers thoughts are on
this.
It would be interesting to see how this fares when faced with a whole lot
of router acls that got put in to filter out nachi
Although I generally
Scratch that... Yes, the A record. You are right.
I need coffee or something... :-)
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Make love, not spam
Not the A, the PTR... But yes, that could be a nasty
, November 29, 2004 9:12 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
...
What about the case where the spammer gets black listed, traffic starts
pounding the rouge site and then the spammer changes the A record to be
www.example.com instead. Now all
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
The BBC also has an article this morning about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4051553
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:14:01PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Techdirt has an article this morning that discusses how
Lycos Europe is encouraging their users to run a screensaver
that constantly pings servers suspected to be used by
spammers and also suggests that In other words,
Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already noted as unbelievably stupid and dissected on Spam-L,
I'm inclined to agree...
but: getting into a bandwidth contest with spammers is a guaranteed
loss, as they have an [essentially] infinite amount available to
them for free. Apparently Lycos
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Corlett writes:
Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already noted as unbelievably stupid and dissected on Spam-L,
I'm inclined to agree...
but: getting into a bandwidth contest with spammers is a guaranteed
loss, as they have an [essentially] infinite
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already noted as unbelievably stupid and dissected on Spam-L
It's a DDOS. The risk of collateral damage is high. I
won't discuss the RBL aspect of it because it can't be
legitimized past the first sentence.
-M
From what limited information is available in the articles, it
doesn't sound that way. It's not really a DDoS attack, but more of a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Make love, not spam
[ SNIP ]
The big difference between Lycos Europe, and a script kiddie with
zombies is that Lycos
For residential users on cable-modem, the plan will deplete a scarce resource:
upstream transmit opportunities. The DOCSIS MAC layer imposes an upper limit
on the quantity of upstream transmissions (essentially PPS limitation, unless
concatenation is employed, and concatenation is probably
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Make love, not spam
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Hannigan, Martin
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Make love, not spam
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Make love, not spam
Although I have
traditionally been in favor of low bandwidth fixes, this kind of
appeals to my sense of poetic justice.
spammer
I agree and I'm surprised you even mentioned the wordt justice...since
when is retaliating bad practices with more bad practises that are
hardly likely to take out the real target considered a good idea..?
Erik
Paul G wrote:
spammer buys hosting account, pays with fraudulent credit card,
- Original Message -
From: Erik Haagsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
I agree and I'm surprised you even mentioned the wordt justice...since
when is retaliating bad
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Erik Haagsman
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:30 PM
To: Paul G
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
I agree and I'm surprised you even mentioned the wordt justice...since
when is retaliating bad
Once upon a time, Miller, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ah, but I said poetic justice. Like for like. I am hearing DDoS
over and over. As I understand it, the application will throttle to
prevent Denial of access. It just causes additional GB to be used and
paid for.
For sites set up with
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
- Original Message -
From: Erik Haagsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Make love, not spam
I agree and I'm surprised you even
I am not saying that the proposal is intrinsically right or wrong, I am
saying it could have merit if just in waking up a brain-dead co-lo
facility operator to deal with spamming clients.
-mm
How would this method be more effective than the e-mails, faxes, blocklists,
and phonecalls
that
It's a DDOS. The risk of collateral damage is high.
snip
From what limited information is available in the articles, it
doesn't sound that way. It's not really a DDoS attack, but more of
a distributed web surfing bot.
snip
I understand this as more of a Distributed Consumption of Service
The servers targeted by the screensaver have been manually selected
from various sources, including Spamcop, and verified to be spam
advertising sites, Lycos claims.
I'd like to know how will they manually choose which spammers they'll go
after? Personal e-vendetta? It'll just
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:54:03AM -0600, Jerry Pasker wrote:
The big difference between Lycos Europe, and a script kiddie with
zombies is that Lycos is mature enough to use restraint and not knock
down websites with brute force.
I have no idea whether they're mature enough. They're most
25 matches
Mail list logo
