Denial of Service Attacks disguised as Spam...

[The purpose of this note is to change your thinking about Spam]

Enormous amounts of this so-called "spam" is nothing of the sort, it
is malicious people using mail ports to conduct denial of service
attacks. And the sooner we wake up to this fact the better.

We need a new word for this and to publicize this new
attitude. Because as soon as someone says "spam" all that comes to
mind is a Sanford Wallace type pathetically trying to make a buck with
annoying advertising, and people (in particular law enforcement) just
won't give "annoying advertising" a moment's thought.

Good point. Perhaps the best analogies for the law types are the junk-faxing
laws. It's outsiders maliciously consuming a particular resource.

The fact that not one of these is getting past our filters doesn't
seem to discourage this person, not even over a period of days.

Yeah, but the person sending them may not be able to tell that they're
not getting through.

I don't believe this person is actually selling anything.

Can I repeat that?

  I DON'T BELIEVE THIS PERSON IS ACTUALLY SELLING ANYTHING

Out of curiosity, have you looked at the content of the message? It's
interesting that this may be a DoS attack, where there are other things one
can do to try and deny service.

(Although, setting up somebody else's mail server to repeatedly connect is
in fact a pretty legit DoS in and of itself...)

We're being fooled, we're allowing criminals to operate without
challenge.

--
        -Barry Shein

Are they criminals? I don't know if I want to get into a debate about
"criminal" vs. "doing something nasty that's not been declared illegal".
Either way, I agree that there should be moved to curb this sort of repeated
contact, whether it's a deliberate attack or not.

eric

What about representing yourself to be from another domain (e.g. AOL.COM)
so that the rejects/flames/etc. go to an innocent agent? Isn't that a
form of fraud?

Yes, and both AOL and Compuserve have won civil court cases
  based on that.

I would be interested to know:

Have there been any court cases in which the plantiff (spam victim) sued
the defendant (spamming asshole) for monetary compensation for damages,
due to the fact that the plantiff's e-mail carried a signature along the
lines of "$x charge per spam message recieved"? (no other factors of
significance involved...)...?

OR... incidents in which such a "spam fee" was actually paid outside of
court?

It would be interesting to find out how effective such a threat really is.

Thanks,
Adam

To the best of my knowledge (and I follow this closely, though
  I no longer read the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups due to my
  limited time and their overwhelming lack of substance), nobody
  has ever collected based on such threats.

  In some instances, however, that specific spam has stopped.

  We should probably continue this elsewhere, perhaps spam-policy
  or a similar list.