Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:13:20 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: oceanare pte ltd <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> Subject: Re: matthew dillon Message-ID: <a05200f24ba6e0a93623e@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <3E4858BA.79ED0126@mindspring.com> References: <200302102159.h1ALxO126845@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3E4858BA.79ED0126@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ -hackers trimmed, because I'm sure they couldn't care less about this topic ]
At 5:58 PM -0800 2003/02/10, Terry Lambert quotes Dave Hayes:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
>> Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
>> > Do you unsubscribe from mailing lists you merely monitor for
>> > interesting content, rather than subscribing to them, when some
>> > jerk fills up your POP3 maildrop because they have an axe to
>> > grind, and, as a result, mail which you consider "important",
>> > compared to the list traffic, bounces?
>>
>> I don't use POP3, precisely because of that reason. Do you?
What on Ghu's green earth does POP3 or IMAP make a difference?
Would you really rather have a push-based system, where I can
force you to take whatever I want to send you and at precisely the
time I want to send it to you?!?
Okay, let's say you use an interactive mail system. How do you
get your mail? It still has to queue up somewhere, unless you've got
a 24x7 direct feed into your brain, and you can guarantee that this
feed has more bandwidth than the entire sum total bandwidth of all
networks world-wide.
>> > People who advocate "receiver filtering" (either of the active
>> > variety, or of the "just ignore" variety) is the answer to all
>> > SPAM-like problems apparently do not understand the realities
>> > of many people using pull-based rather than push-based email
>> > transports.
>>
>> We do understand those realities, which is why we contend that
>> pull-based systems aren't the correct technology to use for receiving
>> randomly ubiquitous content such as humans are likely to generate.
And you would substitute what? Instant messaging?!?
> How is it that you suggest people defend against people with
> bigger pipes for shoving messages out than people have for
> messages coming in? In the limit, the same argument will apply
> to push-based systems, eventually, since you can not RED-queue
> persistent TCP connections, only incoming connection requests.
Hell, forget people with bigger pipes doing this sort of crap.
How about a whole shedload of ankle-biters, all deciding that they
want to ping your router at the same time? Put enough thousands of
them together, and they can take down any site on the 'net.
We learned this lesson the hard way at AOL. There simply is
absolutely no way you can protect yourself against a concerted attack
by a sufficiently motivated and empowered person or group. The
absolute best possible you can hope for is to reduce the probability
of a worst-case scenario, and to reduce the potential fallout when
you are hit with one.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a05200f24ba6e0a93623e>