🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct6.193327.24293@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.132642.12355@Gwinnett.COM> todd@Gwinnett.COM (Todd Reese) writes:
>>The bombing run was much more distructive than orginal mail.  Five Meg.
>>more distructive.
>
>As it should be. Any retaliation should achieve several goals:
>
>a. make sure the incident (mistake :-)) does not happen again from the 
>   original site
>
>b. make sure that others are discouraged again from trying the same
>   thing

This just leads to people trying for maximum impact during a malicious
incident, seeing if they can wreak more havoc than the guys who
retaliate.  A quiet note is the best response, more often than not the
people who send the mail aren't aware of what is and isn't considered
reasonable (especially sales people in a .com organisation like ours
who don't use the net often).  

A quiet considered response is much more likely to get sysadms to
explain things to their users so that it doesn't happen again (maybe
evem point then at comp.newprod), and will not gratify the malicious
minority.

Mike

--
The "usual disclaimers" apply.    |
Mike Stok                         |
mike@meiko.com                    |
Meiko tel: (617) 890 7676         |