On 6/12/14, 3:59 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote:
>Elizabeth Zwicky writes:
>
> > I did not say that the levels were the same; I said the attackers
> > have not gone away. They are not at high volume, but they're sure
> > sitting there checking to see whether or not it's working.
>
>What you said, exactly, is
>
> But I do, in fact, have data, and that data tells me that the
> attackers forging our users based on stolen addressbooks have never
> stopped; we are still blocking them now.
>
>What they were doing was sending millions, perhaps billions, of spoofed
>messages. "Never stopped" implies they are still sending millions,
>perhaps billions, of spoofed messages. As does "we are still."
>Do you really mean to invoke "plausible deniability"?
No, I mean to say that "never stopped" does not mean "never slowed down",
it means
"never stopped". And we are still blocking them now, every day, possibly
every minute.
The volumes are for the most part down to the levels they were after this
attack started
being used but before the onslaught began, although they go up
considerably from time to time.
Your argument was that we should turn off blocking to see what would
happen.
That only makes sense if the attackers have actually fully gone away. If
you
are still blocking them every day, at any level, there's really no need to
find
out what will happen if you stop blocking them. You don't unlock the door
when somebody
is still standing outside it rattling it to see if it will open.
Elizabeth
zwi...@yahoo-inc.com
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
