Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:52:21 +0200
From: Jacek Prucia <jacek.prucia@7bulls.com>
To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Flood?
Message-ID: <20020926225221.A22500@warszawa.7bulls.com>
References: <20020925231243.GB972@scotch.ics.uci.edu>
 <JLEGKKNELMHCJPNMOKHOAEDIGPAA.striker@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <JLEGKKNELMHCJPNMOKHOAEDIGPAA.striker@apache.org>;
 from striker@apache.org on Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:26:56AM +0200
Sender: jacekp@warszawa.7bulls.com

wiadomosc od Sander Striker, z dnia Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:26:56AM +0200
[...]
> > Well, it is, but that's not going to be causing 500 swish-e requests
> > constantly.  It might do about 15 swish-e request in total depending
> > upon which example they use (3 per profile run, 5 times).  Does anyone
> > have any knowledge that these DoSes are caused by malicious use of
> > flood?  If so, I want to buy the script kiddie a beer at ApacheCon.
> 
> *grin*
> 
> Well, I wasn't implying flood was being used for it.  Only that it
> is wrong(tm) to use real hostnames in documentation/examples.

To be precise -- flood has no real docs. This is why few example configurations use real hosts. You don't have real docs, but have a quick look at example config, and you know all about flood (well... almost ;)

If majority of people think that such thing suck, then let it be. However let me finish real (xml based that is) flood docs first. Then we can make a bunch of scripts of all kinds (php, jsp, asp, whatever) that demonstrate all nifty flood features. Since we have baseurl support in flood it would be trivial for people to prepare test enviroment for themselves. Does that make sense?

regards,
-- 
Jacek Prucia
7bulls.com S.A.