lows commercial message solicitation but the messages are subject to to a 25 cent per
bit delivery fee and all mail users reserve the right to charge 25 cents per bit or
the amount agreed to in a settlement as a reader fee All standard mail services are f
or preauthorized emails private in nature If you do not agree to pay these fees
disconnect and do not send your messages) with SMTP id h1A4gMP10124
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:42:23 -0600
Message-ID: <02ca01c2d0be$cb2023c0$4b02a8c0@destroyer>
From: "James Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Subscribers of Qpopper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Relaying Denied
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:42:12 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
Disposition-Notification-To: "James Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
What if a worm to targets some majorly important domain name and take out
all inbound messaging for the domain via DDOS using this type of issue??
Silly to depend on email for important stuff when you think about it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Old" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Subscribers of Qpopper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Relaying Denied
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 11:43 -0500, Alan Brown wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> >
> > > I "solve" 2 by running antivir on the mail server. This quarantines
> > > mail containing viruses, sends a message to the intended recipient to
> > > say it has done so and a message to the sender,
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > So you're one of the bastards with malconfigured scanners mailbombing me
> > with virus warnings thanks to most worms using forged addresses. Gee,
> > thanks. What makes you think it's much different to any other form of
> > spam?
>
> Unfortunately an increasing number of people are doing that, both for worm
> e-mail and spam e-mail. Even worse the practice has actually been
> recommended in various PopTech media. It's incredibly stupid because the
> sender address on virtually all spam and most current worms is forged.
> At the least, replying generates large numbers of bounced messages. At
> worst, it floods innocents' mailboxes with messages having nothing to do
> with them. In either case it creates a lot of unnecessary traffic. It's
> a really stupid thing to do!
>
> --
> Chip Old (Francis E. Old) E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Manager, BCPL Network Services Phone: 410-887-6180
> Manager, BCPL.NET Internet Services FAX: 410-887-2091
> 320 York Road
> Towson, MD 21204 USA
>
