Re: SPEWS (Spam Prevention Early Warning System) under attack?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Stuart, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. Stuart

    Stuart Guest

    "Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
    news:...
    > with no success. It just times out. Interestingly this site is not
    > cached on 'Google' either, so no alternative site view is available.
    > Has anyone out there been able to contact this site? Or is it under
    > attack?


    Check out this article for more info.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/27/0214238&mode=nocomment&tid=111&tid=126


    Stuart
     
    Stuart, Sep 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stuart

    Snoopy Guest

    On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:26:55 +1200, "Stuart"
    <> wrote:


    >
    >Check out this article for more info.
    >
    >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/27/0214238&mode=nocomment&tid=111&tid=126
    >


    According to that article SPEWS is indeed under attack. So creator
    Joe Jared tells people not to use his service, and proceeds to block
    all domains for those still using the service? Huh?

    Is thre any logic behind this, or has Jared gone mad?

    SNOOPY



    --
    Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
    spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
    details

    --
     
    Snoopy, Sep 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stuart

    T.N.O. Guest

    "Snoopy" wrote
    > According to that article SPEWS is indeed under attack. So creator
    > Joe Jared tells people not to use his service, and proceeds to block
    > all domains for those still using the service? Huh?
    >
    > Is thre any logic behind this, or has Jared gone mad?


    nah, makes sense... that way all traffic to his domain is deemed to be "not
    authorised" as such...

    no official users of the service are using it, so all traffic gets logged as
    suspicious.

    Also, by blocking all address's, it tells the admins that havent read the
    news, to check it out.
     
    T.N.O., Sep 4, 2003
    #3
  4. On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:59:19 +1200, te**yso wrote:


    > Is thre any logic behind this, or has Jared gone mad?
    >
    >

    bandwidth. If all the entries are simply removed, the namservers get
    _pounded_ with even more queries as negatives ar eonly cached for 5
    minutes at most.

    Giving a positive answer with a 24 hour cache period means that the
    queries taper off quickly - and it gets the admin's attention in a way
    that nothing else will.

    The only ones whining about Joe's decision are those who got blocked.
    Those using his list just shrugged it off and continued. They got their
    money's worth after all.

    What's worse? Having mail returned because the far end blocked it, or
    having mail silently dumped unread and unnotified because the recipient
    reads his mailbox with the D key due to the amount of spam he gets?


    --
    There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
    1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
    2: Fraud
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Sep 5, 2003
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frog

    concentric.net falsely listed by SPEWS

    Frog, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    470
  2. Nomen Nescio
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    Nomen Nescio
    Aug 29, 2006
  3. Nigel Howe
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    416
    T.N.O.
    Sep 4, 2003
  4. Patrick Dunford

    Mozilla spews

    Patrick Dunford, Jul 10, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    515
    Patrick Dunford
    Jul 11, 2004
  5. Ramon
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,430
    Stu Fleming
    Aug 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page