[Mimedefang] Spammers who won't take no for an answer

Ben Kamen bkamen at benjammin.net
Mon Oct 20 23:53:27 EDT 2003



Isn't it nice that Microsoft designed tools into Windows that a utility
can cause the OS to crash?

Love it.

 -Ben

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Daniel Kasak wrote:
>
> >
> Not that I'm particularly interested in US law, but wouldn't spamming
> itself break these laws? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> The '... with intent to ...' bit could be denied, but I'm sure spammers
> realise the effects of their activities on mail servers.
> In Australia, we have had Telstra refunding 50% of monthly access costs
> to users who couldn't send / receive mail because of the backlog of spam.
> I could argue that I had no intention of halting / disabling their
> systems, and was simply using smbdie in a pre-emptive attack ( no UN
> backing required ) with the goal of relieving the load on my mail server.
>
> I accept, however, that the law is an ass, and what's more, it's an ass
> with a tendancy to favour corporate interests.
> Your warning, therefore was sensible.



More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list