Re: [OT] Re: Horiffic SPAM

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:

> Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 02:11:59PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >>
>
> > Well it seems that fire-walling the SPAM servers is *not* a good idea.
> > They are persistant, gang up, and will not give up until they are
> > able to deliver the mail! When I firewall them, my network traffic
>
> According to standards they will give up after 5 days or so.
>
> > ends up being continuous SYN floods as every spam-server in the
> > country tries to connect. It doesn't do any good to set `ipchains` to
> > REJECT instead of DENY. They just keep on banging on the door.
> >
>
> Have you considered teergrubing them instead?  That ought to
> fix the bandwith problem.  And it is not so fun for whoever has
> the spam server either - either disrupting some spammers operation
> or harassing some server admin into making his box un-abuseable.
>
>

I thought it would be easier than that. However, I did write a
program that keeps the connection open forever (until the SPAM-server
hangs up). This slows down the servers. I also thought that I could
make multiple connections to the server and never hang up, depriving
the SPAM-server of resources. However, I can't make a new connection
with the same socket (don't know why), EISCONN,  without closing the
previous.
This means that I need a new socket for each connection. I run out
of sockets before the SPAM-servers do.


> Helge Hafting
>


Richard B. Johnson
Project Engineer
Analogic Corporation
Penguin : Linux version 2.2.15 on an i586 machine (330.14 BogoMips).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/