🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

First thing, Todd, I think it was a bad mistake to interject yourself/your
company in this.  By acting as censor and editor, you remove any hope
of ever being protected as a common carrier against illegal traffic 
passing through your site.  Unless you want to filter everything, you
have to let it all go through.  You should have handled any complaint
against your client out of band and NOT messed with the mail flow
unless it physically affected your system.

>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

Surely you don't think it had either effect, do you?  You don't REALLY
think malicious mailbombing does anything except make people mad, do you?
Since the mailer's original actions are perfectly legal while malicious 
retalliation can constitute any number of criminal offences here in
the US, someone victimized by this mailbombing who chooses to be
agressive could cause a lot of people a lot of problems.

The proper way to handle junk mail is simply to delete it.  What's so 
hard about that?

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.