Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60006	2005-07-19 21:57:00	Hit back at spammers	Greg (193)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
373529	2005-07-21 22:32:00	It's a big call to assume an ISP is as culpable as the spammer it has as a customer Is it? If i was to onsell bandwidth to my nieghbour whose only concern was some dodgy scam that ultimatly got traced back to my network i would expect to be partly responcible. It's much the same as if i presented the internet with abuse myself, if it comes through my network, i am responcible. Why should an ISP be any different if they KNOWINGLY provide service to a spammer? If it takes complaints to wake them up good, if that doesnt work, then it might take being overloaded with complaint traffic that goes to the spammer that they host. Also good.	personthingy (1670)
373530	2005-07-21 22:40:00	Mr. B. B.: I agree that in a nice world, that what you say is 100% accurate, but we live in a world of revisionist values that say the gun maker is responsible for any deaths the gun might cause even in the hands of a crazed homacidal maniac. Fair isn't a password any more; we have all gravitated to litigationists and sad as it may be, it seems that drastic measures are what happens when morals are missing. Killing the patient to destroy the cancer seems to be the only way any more. Sad too. I don't think a nice vs real world scenario is involved at all. I think the scenario outlined is flawed, potentially open to abuse and and by attacking the web site - and hence if enough traffic is generated the ISP hosting it - it does the very thing that we all hate, clog up the net. Encouraging any type of DOS attack for any reason is inherantly a dangerous thing to do. There are better technology solutions than that. This is - as Lycos's attempt was - a popularist idea that appeals to users thirst for vengance without acually being a vey good idea. I think Ninja's "vigilante" analogy is very apt.	Biggles (121)
373531	2005-07-21 22:46:00	Why should an ISP be any different if they KNOWINGLY provide service to a spammer? 1] Because the ISP's other innocent customers may be effected by this action. What right do you have to do this? 2] Because can you guarantee that only ISPs who KNOWINGLY provide bandwidth to spammers will be effected? Automated technology tends to back fire in tbis respect and even non-automated blacklists have a history of punishing the ronf people. 3] If the ISP is breaking no laws itself, what right do users have to attack it? You may think that is a fine distinction but our society is based on respect for this. Outlaw spam and then provide penalties in law for an ISP KNOWINGLY providing support for spam.	Biggles (121)
373532	2005-07-21 23:01:00	Outlaw spam and then provide penalties in law for an ISP KNOWINGLY providing support for spam.Now this i must agree with. However i must point out that what is being offered is only an mechanism for automated responce to what was sent to us. The spammer initiates unsolicated contact, Visiting the spammers site is merely a solicated responce. The spammers usualy request that people visit thier sites often, do they not?	personthingy (1670)
373533	2005-07-21 23:05:00	2] Because can you guarantee that only ISPs who KNOWINGLY provide bandwidth to spammers will be effected? Automated technology tends to back fire in tbis respect and even non-automated blacklists have a history of punishing the ronf people. It would seem unlikely that Huck Suck would want us to buy "cheap software" or modified body parts from disney.com	personthingy (1670)
373534	2005-07-21 23:10:00	Mr . B . B . your: 2] Because can you guarantee that only ISPs who KNOWINGLY provide bandwidth to spammers will be effected? Automated technology tends to back fire in tbis respect and even non-automated blacklists have a history of punishing the ronf people . It plays this way: When asked of "Big Nose" Joe Valucciti, the mastermind of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in Chicago during the days of Al Capone's "wet years", "What, Mr . Valucciti is your association with Mr . Capone?" His answer: "I don't think I ever met the guy" . End of story . End of culpability . End of case .	SurferJoe46 (51)
373535	2005-07-21 23:19:00	Colourful analogy Joe but I don't think it is fair to comlpare an ISP - especially if said ISP is providing as service to a customer within the law - to a mobster. And I do not think it wise or fair to run a system which may potentially attack that ISP without the purden of proof of guilt, or indeed when the ISP has done nothing illegal. I hate spam. But this isn't the way to stop it.	Biggles (121)
373536	2005-07-21 23:34:00	It would seem unlikely that Huck Suck would want us to buy "cheap software" or modified body parts from disney.com If Huck Suck is using ISP Braindead.com and he is one of Braindead's 3000 small customers then is Braindead.com guilty and worthy of punishment? Surely that depends on the legal status of what HS is doing and how the law views Braindead.com's status in relationship to HS. if you encourage DOS attacks aginst HS's website, that take down some or all of Braindead's other customers are you leaglly or morally justified in doing that? If you kill Brandead's business is that fair? This system may not do that but that's what I mean about encouraging this kind of thing being dangerous -- other people get on the band wagon and start doing stuff that isn't so selective. I don't see that we have the right to make up our own laws and deliver our own punishments like this. Yes, it may seem like we are morally justified, especially if Braindead.com is a scumbag company that knows full well what HS is doing and is just happy to take the money, but is every ISP of a spammer like this? Once you start encouraging this kind of approach it is not a big step to the "good guys" sitting around threatening a DOS attack on any ISP they consider to be hosting a spammer. That is criminal and basically terrorism and it is amazing how easy people can move from believing they are in the right o doing things like this because they believe it is justified. I'm not saying this company is doing that - but if this approach becomes acceptable that is where it will lead.	Biggles (121)
373537	2005-07-21 23:51:00	And I do not think it wise or fair to run a system which may potentially attack that ISP without the purden of proof The only way this can put load on servers that are not part of the spam serving chain is if spammers start sending Es that tell us to " buy cheap copys of XP from microsoft" :lol: It has to come back to the spammers site. Spammers gain nothing by inviting us to check out innocent partys. This system works by going to the site of invite, in simalar mass as the invites were sent. The only way i see it could miss is if spammers start inviting people to go and complain to someone else.	personthingy (1670)
373538	2005-07-22 00:32:00	The only way this can put load on servers that are not part of the spam serving chain is if spammers start sending Es that tell us to " buy cheap copys of XP from microsoft" :lol: It has to come back to the spammers site. Spammers gain nothing by inviting us to check out innocent partys. This system works by going to the site of invite, in simalar mass as the invites were sent. The only way i see it could miss is if spammers start inviting people to go and complain to someone else.God, you're an idiot. I've got a dozen or so webservers in my machine room. They all host ~500 sites each. If one of my customers on webserverA puts up a site to sell penis pills I'm not going to know. If he then spams a million idiots, saying go to www.penispills.com to get enlarged, and idiotA (you for instance) will have that stupid program go "OMG ATTACK www.penispills.com" If 100,000 people start attacking www.penispills.com it will initially affect that site, then the other 500 sites co-hosted on the same server, if the attack was big enough it would the start to affect core switches and routers and affect the other servers at the datacentre. Suddenly you've taken down 6000 innocent websites, or potentially an entire ISP from a stupid DDoS attack (because that is EXACTLY what it is) all because one customer decided he might be able to make a quick buck.	ninja (1671)
1 2 3 4 5 6