Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 1998)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: Daniel Reed <djr @ narnia . n . ml . org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: Olwen Williams <olwen @ ihug . co . nz>
Cc: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <3548D049 . FA32667B @ ihug . co . nz>

On Fri, 1 May 1998, Olwen Williams wrote:
) Incidentally I've never been forge subscribe to a mailing list.  If it
) happens to Ron all the time does that say samething about him?  Could he
) have antagonised people so that they do this to him.
If I felt that your post was extremely antagonistic to me, does that make
you bad? Does that justify my subscribing you to 500 mailing lists that
talk about bestiality and toe-nail clipping?

I absolutely *hate* it when someone says "well, since X bad thing happens
to you, you must be bad." A friend of mine, who ran a Linux machine over
his dialup connection (he was going to get it co-located somewhere in a
month or something, and was running it over his modem until that time),
would get smurfed several times a week. Probably not because of his own
actions, but instead those of his users. At one point, his ISP told him
that if *he got smurfed one more time* that they would cancel his account
because, *obviously*, if you do something that "warrants" being smurfed,
then you are a Bad Person and that ISP didn't want to have anything to do
with you. That's faulty logic, and that's the kind of logic you're
applying here. Subscribe bombing is bad, and doesn't necessarily say
anything whatsoever about the character, integrity, nor the "Bad"ness of
the victim. Maybe he antagonized people, but maybe some psychopath just
likes targetting his address? Maybe he pissed the wrong person off at one
point, or maybe someone on a mailing list he was on got really pissed off
about something and decided to attack that mailing list's subscribers?

I've never been subscribe bombed in my life either, but at one point the
NANOG mailing list was (in a low-level sorta way). NANOG = North American
Network Operators Group, aka the people who run the Internet in the US. I
doubt highly that it, as an entity, offended anyone (unless they're from
the former Yugoslavia and were offended by the fact that there was no
Slavic Nations Network Operators Guild, or something). 

Also, a couple of the subscriptions actually went through, because <cough>
the MLM software they were using <ahem> didn't support authentication
cookies <cough>, but that's another thread...

Daniel Reed <n @
 ml .
 org> (ask me for my PGP key)
Unix - it's a nice place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there.

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: Joe Smith <jms @ gallifrey . Tymnet . COM>
Next: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: Lazlo Nibble <lazlo @ swcp . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk @ gsp . org>
Next: Re: Prevalence of mailing-list bombing
From: murr rhame <murr @ vnet . net>

Search Internet Search