North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: GoDaddy DDoS

  • From: Sam Crooks
  • Date: Thu Dec 01 12:34:32 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Zt6OQSUG1lz+PvMm1NLrJoYOwOE0z82E4Saj1GnRKqF93jvKF54zEhY4djbEwVe1B0uh9tzKV8MdKc09vjIfnkoWwK2TWE+XYvh9ezD8bOed16BxEX7PWSldjaIMjj2tDjOLweaEhSfWgtx67S2+LeLNJPxYRfL+f+buW7KlASo=
So anyway, back to the original post.... does anyone from GoDaddy have
any information regarding the DDoS?

--

On 12/1/05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:47:17 PST, Jay Hennigan said:
>
> > Has the validity of such language ever been upheld in court?
>
> IANAL - but apparently the use of it on *some* faxes has stood up in court,
> it hasn't been tested on e-mail yet, but a number of people who have written
> on it think that the indiscriminate use of disclaimers will backfire badly
> if the opposing legal staff can show the company can't tell the difference
> between an e-mail discussing strategy for an upcoming trial and a request
> for help with BGP. URLs I found the last time I researched this:
>
> http://www.wendytech.com/articlesemailandprivilege.htm
> http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/commercial_litigation/LitigationEthics.Brief.33.2.Winter2004.pdf
> http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/cyber/cyberlaw/17law.html
>
> > Nobody reads it anyway.  You're not actually reading this, are you?
> > I didn't think so.
>
> I love the ones that put "please discard without reading" at the *bottom* of
> the e-mail.  Bonus points for having a single unwrapped 3,487 character long
> line so standard-compliant MUAs that don't flow text unless it *says* text/flowed,
> so you have to use the horizontal scrollbar to find the "please discard without
> reading" ;)
>
> ObNANOG: The ones that claim you are *required* to destroy *all* copies,
> including the unlinked-but-not-yet-overwritten data blocks on that RAID
> you use for a mail store, and the backup tapes.  I mean, after all, if they
> screwed up and they want it *destroyed*, they don't want it *destroyed* in the
> half-assed, just-get-the-disk-copy way that eventually helped convict
> Colonel Oliver North partly on the basis of the backup tapes:
>
> http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/reagan/chron.txt
>
> Figuring out how to do this right, and then invoice the responsible company for the
> cost, thus creating a profit center for your company, is left as an excersize
> for the reader. ;)
>
>
>
>