On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:11:08PM -0400, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> Isn't that collateral damage issue enough to have angered hundreds of ISPs
> & end users to the point of not necessarily organizing a DDoS, but ignoring
> it? I think it is far _more_ likely that the DDoS came from the innocent
> victims fighting back rather than the spammers.
Presently I beg to differ. (I do encourage you to prove me wrong :)
Especially in the case of SPAMHAUS, they were no XRBL. What networks were
really listed as collateral damage ? I dont see how willtel was an
innocent bystander either in the previous case.
