Internet, spamming, etc.

> From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Wed Jan 18 17:00:14 1995
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 07:54:00 -0800
> I also think this is the one great flaw in the design of the Internet;
> namely, that the sender has all the control over what packets flow
> over the net.  A receiver can ask for a slowdown or cessation, but
> there's no obligation to do so.  This will be, if anything, the
> limiting factor in scalability of the internet.

In theory, yes. 

However, almost all Internet protocols are TCP/IP based.
The receiver of a TCP connection can choose not to accept
the connection, or to drop it at any time. The window protocol
keeps the sender from transmitting faster than any part of
the connection can manage. (How do you think ftp transfers
between sites with disparate connection speeds would 
work otherwise?)

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.

--
Richard Parratt

> 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.

-jon

( --------[ Jonathan D. Cooper ]--------[ entropy@intnet.net ]-------- )
( PGP 2.6.2 keyprint: 31 50 8F 82 B9 79 ED C4  5B 12 A0 35 E0 9B C0 01 )
( home page: http://taz.hyperreal.com/~entropy/ ]---[ Key-ID: 4082CCB5 )