On Saturday 28 August 2004 19:29, AccuSpam wrote:
At 12:39 PM 8/28/2004 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 04:28 +0800, AccuSpam wrote:
Uh oh. Someone else with an auto-responder. Are you going to stone
him or hang him by his b(_at_)lls?
If he has an autoresponder which responds to the wrong address, or which
responds with message which has a non-empty reverse-path of its own,
then that's a denial of service attack in waiting, and should be
reported as network abuse to the upstream provider.
The joke was that this is not worth fight over.
Indeed, the joke is not worse fighting over. Rather turn the joke into
a practical joke, hehe:
As soon as you have two autoresponses from two different
autoresponders, forge a message from autoresponder A to autoresponder
B, sit back, and watch the fun...
As soon as the two perps are back in office, they'll understand why
autoresponders are such a bad idea...
[Yes, I know. SPF will prevent such a joke. But do you really believe
that anybody dumb enough to set up an autoresponder has the smarts to
set up SPF?]
Al