1995-01-19 - Re: Internet, spamming, etc.

Header Data

From: rparratt@london.micrognosis.com (Richard Parratt)
To: rparratt@london.micrognosis.com
Message Hash: 5c3161e5dbfad91f346d886faade9dc7b39b7d01f9df8f3086e8c5cadf3e83c6
Message ID: <9501191151.AA04857@pero>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-19 11:51:53 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 03:51:53 PST

Raw message

From: rparratt@london.micrognosis.com (Richard Parratt)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 03:51:53 PST
To: rparratt@london.micrognosis.com
Subject: Re: Internet, spamming, etc.
Message-ID: <9501191151.AA04857@pero>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> > One could theoretically have a package that sprayed UDP packets
> > at a particular IP address, or even have a modified TCP
> > that ignored disconnects. I think most service providers
> > would regard using such code as being on a par with running
> > a program that tried to telnet sequentially to all known IP
> > addresses, trying common passwords on each.
> 
>   Code exists to do all of the things that you've mentioned.
> 
>   That was the original point of the discussion.

No doubt it does. But my assertion is that most service providers
would cut you off if you tried running such code, especially
the latter case.

--
Richard Parratt





Thread