On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Nathan J. Mehl wrote:
) In the immortal words of James Lick (jlick@drivel.com):
) > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you
) > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces
) > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in
) > question.
) Having been on the receiving end of that very attack, allow me to
) personally confirm that that was in fact the case, and be the first to
) commend AOL for adopting a lower-profile bounce-handling procedure.
Well, receiving end of one of those incidents mayhaps. This happened as well
to Monolith (ml.org) about a year ago, where overnight the
<root@earth.ml.org> mailbox filled up with several dozen thousand bounced
bounces from AOL targetted for <SexyGirl69@ml.org> and <TryItNow@ml.org> and
other bogus addresses. It was decidedly not fun, though we never even
contacted AOL about the "problem" since it wasn't at their end.
I would much rather the actual network abusers be caught, arrested, and beat
with a fresh trout or two (or three) than have to go around "fixing" these
types of "problems" with destructive measures, such as silently dropping
bounced mail, and even going back to having to close all of the public
relays on the net--I really miss mail.uu.net.
--
Daniel Reed <n@ml.org>
Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.
References:
-
Re: AOL
From: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org>
|
|
