🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35182D39.E0C498B8@hotmail.com>, Buzz  <purphaze@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Alan DeKok wrote:

>>   *You* don't, but *Freenet* does.

>>   Think of what 100,000,000 spam messages a day will do to Freenet.
>> That's where we're heading, and nuclear weapons are just NOT an option
>> for spammers.

>This is not an example of how spam put someone out of business.This is you
>speculating on what spam may do in the future.

Freenet has crashed more than once because of inbound spam.

Our corporation, with one of the largest IP networks in existance has
also had our servers crash because of outright spammer attacks to the
tune of several hundred thousand email messages being routed through
our mailers over a few hour period, with the resulting backsplash from
busted addresses killing the postmaster aliases and the servers.

That costs money.  A lot of money in fact.  Strong Property Management
sued several spammers over exactly this, and got a rather significant
settlement.

>When you access the internet you are knowingly opening yourself upto these
>types of abuses. If you run out to the street naked, don't
>blame the police for arresting you. You did it knowingly.

You have your analogy backwards.

The real analogy is that you're sitting out in your backyard not wearing
any clothing, and someone jumps over the fence and rapes you.

No, you didn't invite it.  The rapist _did_ commit a crime.

>I am also connected via LAN, 24 hrs, 7 days. I see very little
>spam. I post all over with my hotmail address, newgroups, webpages,
>etc...yet I see minimal spam, lucky I guess.

Just plain lucky.  Some people are receiving 50 and more email spams
per day.  We've had a couple of users recently getting hit by several
hundred copies of the _same_ spam over a 48 hour period.

>>   Junk faxes were legal for a while, until weight of public opinion
>> forced lawmakers to change that.

>As far as I thought, the reason for advertiser's fax's being banned was
>because the thermal paper being used was expensive and needed
>to be manually replaced. That did cost actual money, not just a
>"time & effort" sum.

To a corporation, lost productivity is _real_ money.

>Not to take away from the value of time and
>effort, just makes it harder to quote actual $ costs.

At $100/hour loaded labour rates (not unusual in industry), it mounts
up very quickly.

>>   Spam exists, therefore it crashes servers.  It's large volumes of
>> unwanted crap.

>Please , can you give any specific's, like who crashed when for how long
>and how much did it cost to get back up. I have asked for any stat's
>available. So far only speculation.

How much detail do you want?
-- 
The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

Support the anti-Spam amendment.  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Anti-spam resources: http://spam.abuse.net