"Eko Priono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:29:03 -0700, Bob George wrote:
>
> > As well as clogging every system in between. Surely
> > you don't think this is a good approach in any way?
>
> What systems in between? AFAIK mail servers (SMTP)
> commonly calling each other directly.
"Directly" in terms of IP address perhaps, but that traffic flows across
shared links. In terms of e-mail, one domain accepting mail for another,
some links still using UUCP, and the distinct possibility that you've got it
wrong all come to mind as reasons to refrain. The point is, you don't KNOW
that you're only hurting the bad guys. If you find "collateral damage"
acceptable, then by all means, blast away.
> Besides, mail
> packets travelling in bulk rate, so they won't hurt
> anything in TCP level (CMIIW).
Er, backbone load is backbone load. Enough folks with a bad attitude, and
even big fat links can get congested. Unless Quality of Service is being
used to differentiate between traffic types, it's all traffic on the links
at the same priority.
> Except if the "between
> ISP" links actually running through a single line POTS
> dial-up modems of course <g>
Or the links of any other innocent parties in between. Again, what level of
collateral damage is acceptable? If guilt by association is a crime ("Well,
you used the same ISP as the spammer!") then I guess that's OK. ALL
intervening links are likely shared in terms of bandwidth. If an
intermediate party is involved in the mail spool, you're burning their CPU
cycles, and disk space needlessly.
Mail bombs are generally considered poor practice. How is this technique any
different?
- Bob
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
