[RFCI-Discuss] Posit: abuse@aol.com

[Derek J. Balling]

On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Vincent Schonau wrote:
> $VICTIM complains that the messages he's receiving constitute (part  
> of) a DDoS attack. If we accept it is, then as the volume of  
> message redirected by $VICTIM's actions to AOL's abuse-address is  
> of the same order of magnitude, is abusive, and AOL is entitled  
> (expected?) to defend against it.

Whoa whoa whoa, that logic doesn't hold up.

If we accept that "trying to shoot an innocent person is murder",  
then using your logic, he who fires back in self-defense is *also* a  
murderer, which is clearly not right. Also, it would predicate that  
if somehow the victim could miraculously bounce those messages right  
back at the shooter, that would also somehow make the victim into the  
"bad guy".

> I have sympathy for $VICTIMs predicament, and think his complaint  
> is legitimate. I don't think the fact that AOL protected their  
> abuse-handling infrastructure against his or similar attacks makes  
> them rfc-ignorant (quite the opposite: the fact that they're taking  
> such measures underscores their understanding of the importance of  
> an available and working abuse@ contact).

I agree that they clearly think it's important, but isn't their  
rejecting of his -- perfectly legitimate and independent -- complaint  
messages simply rejecting an abuse complaint "because it looks like  
spam"?

> It makes no sense for rfc-ignorant.org to consider filtering for  
> *general* abuse (ie; DNS blocklists) acceptable, but filtering for  
> specific attacks directed at the mailbox in question.

Well, we do have a common sense clause about how you can't block  
abuse@ because the message "looks like spam" (otherwise, how would  
you ever forward a spam message to the sending ISP's abuse  
department). Isn't this essentially the same thing?

Again, to be clear, I sit firmly on the fence on this one, I'm not  
trying to "sway" in either direction, because I think both sides have  
a really compelling case for the (guilt,innocence) of AOL in this case.

D


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2419 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/attachments/20060227/df393c25/smime.bin