Sue your ISP for DoS attack (was Re: [linux-elitists] dealing with Swen)

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Thu Sep 25 16:45:57 PDT 2003


on Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:02:29PM -0700, Don Marti (dmarti@zgp.org) wrote:
> begin Karsten M. Self quotation of Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:40:49PM +0100:
> 
> > I'm seriously considering suing my own ISP for a DoS attack.  They can
> > pick this crap out and dump it.  Why don't they?
> 
> Isn't it a bad thing for ISPs to filter mail, though?
> 
> http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/2190331

Specifically targeted, appropriately controlled, with consent of user,
and with effective measurees, no.

Viral payloads aren't *email*.  They're DoS traffic.



In the case of AOL:

  - The mail being blocked isn't viral or spam.  It's being blocked
    without prejudice simply based on IP of origin.  Even if that IP has
    no history in any of the major anti-spam listing services, including
    all of those specifically listed by AOL.

  - Subscribers, to the extent queried by me, were unaware of the
    service change, have had no success in communicating the problem
    though AOL's support channels, and generally have difficulty in
    understanind what is being don,e wny, or how it affects them and
    their legitimate correspondents.

  - The service is not discretionary at the subscriber level.  SMTP
    rejection on connect is immediate and final.  There is no knwon user
    configuration to enable or disable this service on a per-user basis,
    and the connection itself doesn't proceed to the level of being able
    to specify intended receipt.  Rejection occurs at IP connection,
    prior to any SMTP protocol transaction.

  - The effects of the blocking (mails accepted/blocked) are not
    reported, or given the mechanism of the block, reportable, at a
    per-user basis.  There is no way to assess the impacts of the block
    on a per-user basis.  Ther is no way to assess whether the block
    affects spam, ham, or unclassifiable mail.  It is a point-blank
    refusal of service.

Additionally:  the reporting by Erin Joyce grossly misrepresented, and
directly misquoted me.  Internet.com has failed to post my rebuttal
comments, and fails to respond to my email queries on the subject.

These are posted here:

    A badly misrepresented presentation
    http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=96625O

    Joyce butchered my comments, making me appear to be a spammer/bulk
    mailer, and to be speaking on behalf of spammer, open-relay
    maintainers, and commercial speach. I've just sent her and her
    editor the following response, with a request it be posted as a
    follow-up to her story.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
     Feinstein's answer to Enron envy.
       http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20030926/afc0f666/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list