Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

"steve auvache" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
> Vanguard wrote
>>"steve auvache" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> If their service turns out to be half of what it claims then I will
>>> happily sing their praises as I would with *any* successful 
>>> anti-spam
>>> campaign.
>>
>>
>>An end-user speaketh.
>
> Aren't us Users what this is all about?

Not when you are vicious and attacking someone else and causing 
collateral damage in the process.  BS works through a coordinated DOS 
attack from its zombied users.  They aren't just hurting the spammer. 
Their shotgun approach hurts OTHERS.  So let's all mailbomb YOUR e-mail 
account just because, well, a spammer said they were you.  Would you 
appreciate that?  Let's all mailbomb YOUR e-mail provider because one of 
their customers is spamming but which makes it impossible for anyone to 
send you mail because your mail server is too busy with the mailbomb. 
Would you appreciate that?  So let's all DOS (denial-of-service) attack 
YOUR webhost provider so no one can get to YOUR web site.  Would you 
appreciate that?  Yeah, let's all be petulant children attacking 
everyone else and hope we're not the one getting reamed as a result. 
Oh, no, spammers would never lie, right, and put links in their 
spamverts to some other innocent's web site.  Oh, yes, YOU are to be 
held responsible for your webhost provider and must suffer because some 
spammer happens to be using a site that is also hosted by your webhost 
provider.

Protecting yourself and fucking over someone else as collateral damage 
is NOT a responsible solution.  Even if you were really lucky and happen 
to be attacking the spammer, your vigilante actions are still 
reprehensible.  If you can't be a responsible netizen, then leave!  We 
would appreciate it.  If you can't manage to find and use a responsible 
anti-spam solution then you really shouldn't be doing e-mail at all.