Hi, On 29 Aug 2003 19:15:15 +0100 Yorkshire Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 04:57, Dragoncrest wrote: > > >Quite. They got pummelled to death by a DDoS. See: > > > > Yeah, stupid pathetic cowardly spammers (I can think of some much > > more colorful choice words for this, but I'll save those for later) are now > > fighting back by DDoS'ing all the blacklists off the planet just so they > > can continue to propagate their crap. You'd figure by now that they'd get > > the message that neither they nor their garbage is wanted. But obviously not. > > > On a good note though, this simply means that the spammers are > > getting desperate and we're winning the fight, slowly but surely. :D > > Does it really mean we're winning? or is it just an escalation from > blocking/evading to DDoS'ing? How long before some hot-headed > antispammer decides to fight fire with fire, abuse with abuse, making > all of us look as bad as them, that's what worries me. The solution to abuse is not more abuse, and yeah, that worries me too. DNSBLs are operated to disrupt business, specifically the business of thieves and criminals and their supporters. For that reason they need to proof against legal and technical attack. And since DNSBLs disrupt apparently-legitimate business (pink-contract ISPs, and unrepentant spammers like Topica) it's unlikely they'll be considered legitimate infrastucture (from a technical perspective, in a perfect internet, they're unnecessary.) This seems like a perfect application for P2P technology; make rbldns or rbldnsd trivial to configure locally, and distribute zone files over cryptographically-secure P2P networks[1]. This eliminates the need for resource-intensive static DOS targets and improves performance over traditional external-DNS-call DNSBL lookups. Find a way to establish trust without revealing the owner of a zone file and you make legal challenges very difficult; if they can't find you, they can't sue you. Hell, I have to credit the RIAA for being the biggest driver of personal privacy technology. As long as they keep suing their customers, they'll keep motivating privacy technology developers. Long-term, we win. -- Bob [1] Aside: Has someone leveraged P2P to distribute patches this way? If not, why not? The DOS on Windows Update should make the reason for doing so obvious. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
