At 01:49 PM 29/09/2003, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:11:08PM -0400, Dan Armstrong wrote: > Isn't that collateral damage issue enough to have angered hundreds of ISPs > & end users to the point of not necessarily organizing a DDoS, but ignoring > it? I think it is far _more_ likely that the DDoS came from the innocent > victims fighting back rather than the spammers.
Presently I beg to differ. (I do encourage you to prove me wrong :)
Especially in the case of SPAMHAUS, they were no XRBL. What networks were really listed as collateral damage ? I dont see how willtel was an innocent bystander either in the previous case.
---Mike
