Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

Vanguard wrote
>"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.

 " No.  *I* am Sparticus. "



> Yeah, let's all be petulant children attacking 
>everyone else and hope we're not the one getting reamed as a result. 

You make some interesting statements, not all of which are correct.

When I look at this:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee18vXyLBMM

It really does bring to mind the recent reaction of the spammer rather
than the spamees.  



>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.

So, this backscatter thing that has happened as a result of all this,
good or bad?  

I say good.  Even if the only result is to lower the burden on the long
suffering American tax payer supporting all those badly configured
mailservers that their government runs.



-- 
steve auvache
one step closer to The Perfect Date.