On July 7, 2003 at 20:29 research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com (Yakov
Shafranovich) wrote:
Howsabout when it's 200+ hijacked servers banging at you full-speed
with the same spam? That's the reality.
Is the proposal to send the hundreds of msgs per minute each a proper
handwritten no thank you note?
....
Therefore just to clarify your statement, are you suggesting these spam
emails should not be rejected but rather thrown away silently? So within
I think when you're under that kind of attack you have little choice,
even just blocking the route tends to invite the hijacked hosts to go
into a retry loop.
the consent model, if you specified that you do not wish to receive email
from dial-up IP addresses, any email coming from those addresses should be
thrown away and not even reported or tracked somewhere?
It's often a matter of survival. Or, put more pragmatically, imagine
it as a zero sum game, if you try to attend to each msg in such an
attack, even to log it, you might find yourself unable to deliver
someone else's legitimate mail in a timely manner (for example,
servers are often set to begin rejecting connections at a given load.)
I suppose one can hypothesize arbitrary amounts of computing power
(remember, we're talking about 200+ hijacked computers banging on your
servers, along with everything else) but at what point is one spending
significant money and administrative/management effort just to
accomodate spammers' resource requirements or some idealized notion of
how it all might be handled?
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg