On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Nathan J. Mehl wrote: ) In the immortal words of James Lick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): ) > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you ) > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces ) > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in ) > question. ) Having been on the receiving end of that very attack, allow me to ) personally confirm that that was in fact the case, and be the first to ) commend AOL for adopting a lower-profile bounce-handling procedure. Well, receiving end of one of those incidents mayhaps. This happened as well to Monolith (ml.org) about a year ago, where overnight the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailbox filled up with several dozen thousand bounced bounces from AOL targetted for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and other bogus addresses. It was decidedly not fun, though we never even contacted AOL about the "problem" since it wasn't at their end. I would much rather the actual network abusers be caught, arrested, and beat with a fresh trout or two (or three) than have to go around "fixing" these types of "problems" with destructive measures, such as silently dropping bounced mail, and even going back to having to close all of the public relays on the net--I really miss mail.uu.net. -- Daniel Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.
