Posted by anthonyberet on 10/23/05 11:09

Ken wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3s06j9Flqip1U2@individual.net...
>
>>Negative wrote:
>>
>>>anthonyberet <nospam@me.invalid>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is quite good, if you can spare some bandwidth (DDOS on winmx >
>>>>scamsites)
>>>>http://www.winmxfreefix.com/ladvampire.php
>>>
>>>
>>>SOME bandwidth? I tried it for a couple of minutes, and
>>>within ten seconds it was downloading at 650 kilobytes/sec, which is all
>>>my bandwidth. It also ramped my CPU utilization to 100%. That's
>>>pyrrhic, and not even victory, since the site can likely serve data as
>>>fast as hundreds of lads could vampire it.
>>
>>True, true, it could take 1000's to drain all those servers, although 3 of
>>them were 'struggling' according to that site.
>>I don't think it does any harm though. - I never did understand the
>>nettiquette about not fighting fire with fire - I have no qualms at all
>>about mail-bombing spammers for instance, when I am certain of the address
>>to bomb.
>
>
> I can give you addressess to 'bomb' as you say, just let me know (a lot of
> them are overseas).

Unfortunately, I would have to satisfy myself that they really were
spammers.
Any that I end up mail-bombing are definitely really using the target
addresses. - I use a challenge-response email system in which all
unknown senders are sent a link to a page where they must confirm that
they are not a bot. They must explicitly grant me permission to
mail-bomb them if they use the service to send me spam.

[Back to original message]