Slashdot Mirror


Lycos Anti-Spam Screensaver Brings Down Spam Sites

ChairmanMeow writes "According to BBC News, the screensaver released by Lycos Europe that targets spam websites has been a bit too successful at targeting spam sites, bringing down two sites, with a third responding intermittently, and raising concerns that the screensaver amounts to a DDoS attack against spam sites. Of course, spammers deserve to be punished, but will DDoS attacks against spam websites help to curb the problem of spam?" While the screensaver allegedly throttles back when a site slows, it would seem it's being a bit overzealous.

503 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. Bad? No way. by Malevolyn · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's nothing illegal. Just packet spam.

    --
    Your ad here.
    1. Re:Bad? No way. by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really,
      Is there anything legally wrong with this?
      It's not a "bot" army in that the owners of the PC's opted in to do this.
      -nB

      --
      Damn 2 min between posts BS has got to go. Should be limited to within topics or something :grrr:

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Bad? No way. by name773 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spam is a bit harsh; the lycos screensaver is a legitimate bulk packet sender.

    3. Re:Bad? No way. by pinkstuff · · Score: 1

      They get what they deserve simple as that! They efectively DOS attack email boxes, so why not DOS them back?

    4. Re:Bad? No way. by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can just picture the packets now. They try to send to every destination port on the target machine, the control bits are always set to "Urgent!" (URG), the source IP is deliberately set incorrectly, the data segment is malformed and contains a fake "opt out" message at the end...

      --
      The *special* hell.
    5. Re:Bad? No way. by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think my screensaver has quit attacking, it just fades to gray with the text "stay tuned" at the top.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Bad? No way. by neitzsche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vigilantism (sp? Is that even a word?) is legally risky at best. I would love to see lawmakers specifically exempt Lycos in the specific anti-spam effort. I'd also like to see lawmakers pass laws that increase spam penalties to death by slow and painful torture. Maybe that's just me.

      But there's a big problem with the concept of legalizing even such specific vigilante acts. Where does the line in the sand get drawn? My USA Lawmakers seem ignorant (at best) when it comes to technology issues. Furthermore, making an exception for spam only would likely open the door to tremendous abuse. Would GWB authorize DDOS against non-Republican affiliated endeavors?

      It's a slippery slope. As much as I like the concept, my doubts are not being assuaged.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    7. Re:Bad? No way. by pcmanjon · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of the spam sites www.moretgage.info has changed it so it has a meta refresh tag to redirect traffic to lycos.

      Interesting, but I don't think the screensaver actually renders and executes HTML code, it just does a GET, meaning the redirect would do nothing, right?

      If it does execute code, (which would be a security hole vuln.) then I suggest they just do a get on www.moretgage.info/fakepage -- which isn't apparently blocked.

    8. Re:Bad? No way. by severoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, wait a minute. It's clearly unethical if the screensaver sends random data to these spammers web sites--that's clearly a DDoS attack. On the other hand, if it's not random data and it's, say, business opportunities and offers of various useful products that the spam sites might want to know about, I'd say this screensaver is providing a valuable service to them!

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    9. Re:Bad? No way. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Informative

      The screensaver isn't doing everything though.

      All the news sites covering the DOS attack are spreading word of the attack.

      They are loading the site themselves because of a link in the news report or a forum comment.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    10. Re:Bad? No way. by oexeo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Interesting, but I don't think the screensaver actually renders and executes HTML code, it just does a GET, meaning the redirect would do nothing, right?

      It depends how the redirect is implemented, a META refresh would probably not work, but a HTTP "Location:" header might.

    11. Re:Bad? No way. by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 5, Informative
      One of the spam sites www.moretgage.info has changed it so it has a meta refresh tag to redirect traffic to lycos. Interesting, but I don't think the screensaver actually renders and executes HTML code, it just does a GET, meaning the redirect would do nothing, right?

      Right. Pretty much all of the recent news stories about this got it 100% wrong. In fact, from a sample HTTP request someone posted in one of these Lycos threads here, the screen saver doesn't even request a valid file. It generates a GET or POST intentionally formulated to generate a web server error response. Very clever. Not so clever are all the whiners and speculators who erroneously presume things like the imagened vulnerability of the Lycos tool to HTTP redirection.

      --
      Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
    12. Re:Bad? No way. by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      Err ... I think you're wrong. an HTTP Location: header just means that when you GET the page, you'll get as one of the headers the 'Location:' header. The client is still responsible for going "Oh, OK, I'll go over there," which means that the client can (and, unless you specifically tell it not to, will) just ignore the Location: header.

    13. Re:Bad? No way. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > Spam is a bit harsh; the lycos screensaver is a legitimate bulk packet sender.

      Exactly. If the mortgage guys don't like the packets coming from our screensavers, why haven't they sent us any opt-out requests?

    14. Re:Bad? No way. by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      True, but many web client libraries (eg Perl's LWP) automatically handle GET redirects, so it depends what software lycos is using!

    15. Re:Bad? No way. by oexeo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Err ... I think you're wrong.

      No you are wrong. If you alter the Location directive to point to a page other than the page requested, *most* clients will follow it.

    16. Re:Bad? No way. by oexeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      In theory you need a 302 response, but I have yet to see a browser, or other common HTTP client which doesn't work without it.

      I have on the other hand seen badly designed clients which will only accept a 200 response, and reject any other response code.

      The parent (to my post) was suggesting that all clients will ignore a location directive unless told to follow it, which is not true.

    17. Re:Bad? No way. by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's clearly unethical if the screensaver sends random data to these spammers web sites--that's clearly a DDoS attack

      Wouldn't the fact that we've all gotten spam from a site constitute a previous business interaction (of course initiated by the spammer)? Maybe the screensaver just needs to send a unsubscribe link to another spammers site. Lycos could claim that the unsubscribe link was coded in error.

    18. Re:Bad? No way. by Geminus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The really bad people are the ISPs. I know some folks at MCI and AT&T... they know their customers are spammers, but as one MCI rep said, "They pay." Some ISPs would be shut down due to a lack of revenue if it weren't for these little providers harboring these SMDs (Spams of Mass Dissemination) I say we should call nato and organize a fact finding investigation. Now let's liberate some servers!

    19. Re:Bad? No way. by pcmanjon · · Score: 2, Informative

      "No you are wrong. If you alter the Location directive to point to a page other than the page requested, *most* clients will follow it."

      Yeah, but this is to hoping the screensaver is a jury-rigged HTTP client that just does a GET request and downloads the content from the server (meaning it doesn't support the full http 1.1

    20. Re:Bad? No way. by alphorn · · Score: 1

      Cool. The owner of mortgage.info can now DoS any site he wants by changing the DNS entry.

    21. Re:Bad? No way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wow! You are setting a new standard in uninformed stupidity!

      If you had bothered to read any of the many articles that were posted about what Lycos were doing, you would know how the spammers are being identified.

      All you have done is shown us all that you shouldn't be allowed near anything more complicated than a stick.

      I just hope you are unemployed and not fucking up some poor companies systems with your complete lack of conscious thought and cognitive skills. What a fucking tard!

    22. Re:Bad? No way. by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's sad though, because people are getting attacked who are innocent.
      These people were far from innocent
      One reply from a guy who is being attacked:

      "One israeli company that was supposed to sell our paintings spamed the
      internet,
      and loaded pictures from our site to save on their traffic.
      Come on, they deserved what they got. They hired someone to spam people ("sell our paintings on the internet") - they should have checked out just "how" they were going to accomplish this.

      Wilfull ignorance is no defense.

      We have no direct connection to this spam.
      Bullshit. They paid someone to spam people, and now they're trying to say it's not their fault. They should have done their due diligence and asked just how this spammer proposed to market their paintings.
    23. Re:Bad? No way. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      One israeli company that was supposed to sell our paintings spamed the internet, and loaded pictures from our site to save on their traffic. We have no direct connection to this spam. Sorry.

      Translation: we hired a spammer to peddle our stuff on those dimwitted foreigners and turned out they caught us! Quick, pretend to be a victim!

      Wait, this sounds familiar...

    24. Re:Bad? No way. by Xiridion · · Score: 1

      This is probably also why it was "too" sucessful. I bet the originally programers didn't expect to have such a large turnout of downloaders.

    25. Re:Bad? No way. by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Try this one:

      http://www.moretgage.info/index.htm

      That attempts to show some page at:

      http://www.moretgage.info/www.my-live-webcams.in fo /s1/join.php

    26. Re:Bad? No way. by museumpeace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if we frame it this way:
      Lycos did not itself or via its employees directly take this action. they gave the victims of the spammers a way to fight back. The people who have not asked to have their inbox crambed with unwanted, often fraudulent emails have the feckless help of a few antispam laws and not much else except to change addresses often. I am sure the spammer didn't ask for all those pings or whatever the Lycos spammerjammer does...turnabout is fair play.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    27. Re:Bad? No way. by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      How is this wrong? It is possible, not sure if its legeal, but it is possible.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    28. Re:Bad? No way. by drakaan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Host headers, look 'em up.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    29. Re:Bad? No way. by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      Well, this is not a browser, it is just telneting to port 80, issuing a GET whatever command, and aborting. Coding an entirely new browser that the user is not going to want to see would be pointless. Hell, if they wanted to look at the spam, they would not have downloaded the screensaver.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    30. Re:Bad? No way. by drakaan · · Score: 1

      RTFOA (The Original Article) The spam list comes from spamcop. I'm reasonably sure that they know what they're doing. Would you consider letting spamcop choose the list of spammers?

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    31. Re:Bad? No way. by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Funniest post ever.

      I spit wine all over my cat thanks to you. :)

    32. Re:Bad? No way. by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there's a big problem with the concept of legalizing even such specific vigilante acts. Where does the line in the sand get drawn?

      Thank you for your interesting comment.

      The spam problem has been inadvertently created by the internet designers and should be addressed and eventually solved by the web designers. This is not an area where legislators need concern themselves. They don't have to pass laws about everything. After all, that would only perpetuate the illusion that technical problems can be solved by passing laws.

      In the long run, the spammers will only win if they can convince the smartest web programmers to concentrate their efforts on the enrichment of the spammers. They could only do this by giving the best web programmers insane amounts of money. But spammers are too greedy themselves to do this. So they will eventually be driven off the web. Why they should be driven off is because they consume too much bandwidth for whatever service they provide to people who use the web. How they will be eventually be driven off is the question of the hour.
      But it is the technical community, the open source geeks, that will eventually get rid of them. Since getting rid of the spammers is in the global public interest, we should give the people who are devising experiments to drive out the spammers the benefit of the doubt.
      Getting rid of assholes is not the first step down any slippery slope.

      Jeez, I sound like an economist playing with a cliche-generation program.

    33. Re:Bad? No way. by ArcticCelt · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think we are on something here! The screen saver should send something through the GET like:
      http://www.spamersite.com/?do_you_want_to_increa se_you_bandwich_by_three_full_gb

      --

      Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    34. Re:Bad? No way. by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your interesting response.

      My (our?) USA legistators have already expressed and interest (CAN-SPAM act) in this arena. I share your opinion that they should not, but they do.

      It scares me right through my tin-foil hat, it does.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    35. Re:Bad? No way. by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Easy fix, point the domain to lycos servers, have them DoS themselves.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    36. Re:Bad? No way. by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 2, Informative
      Easy fix, point the domain to lycos servers, have them DoS themselves.

      Only if we presume that the Lycos people who crafted this have no brains. More likely, the outline of what they do looks something like this:

      1. Get URL of spamvertized site
      2. Review manually, confirm spamminess
      3. Log IP address, add to target list
      4. Monitor DNS for any change in IP
      5. If IP changes, remove from target list, add to short list to monitor URL's site for return to spamminess
      6. If and when it resolves to a spammy site again, add URL to target list again

      Most of the naysayers have not taken more than a superficial look at what Lycos did, and too many are relying on the uninformed opinions of other posters who have also failed to look closely at it or to think it through.

      The Lycos screen saver is dynamic, not static. It can be given new instructions virtually in real time, including instructions to target nothing or to go into its present dimmed "Stay Tuned" mode.

      --
      Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
    37. Re:Bad? No way. by brj · · Score: 1
      Sometimes it doesn't even do a GET or POST. Most of the packets that I've looked at connect to the webserver and issue a "command" that looks like this:

      <makeLOVEnotSPAM>Q}a^|</makeLOVEnotSPAM>

      BTW, I didn't install the screensaver. Some virus must have installed it on my machine without me knowing it. :)

    38. Re:Bad? No way. by Specks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can they opt out when all the packets have no return address, all the information is spoofed, no opt out page is given and on top of that if they do say that they don't want any more they're given more anyways? Funny, but isn't that how they work?

      --
      Specks
      Batteries not included
    39. Re:Bad? No way. by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      or http://www.moretgage.info/x/loan2.php?id=f17

      btw, isn't mortgage spelled mortgage, not moretgage?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    40. Re:Bad? No way. by kaustik · · Score: 1

      From dictionary.com:

      "Vigilantism

      n : the actions of a vigilance committee in trying to enforce the laws"

    41. Re:Bad? No way. by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      That sounds like the behaviour of a company on the way down the drain. Remember PSInet and their so-called "pink contracts"?

    42. Re:Bad? No way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They've sent the opt out requests, we're processing them. Please be aware it may take 1-3 weeks for their request to be fully processed.

    43. Re:Bad? No way. by Eric+Savage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if it's a "real" HTTP client and actually follows them, which I doubt it does.

      Now a CNAME on the other hand...

      >:)

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
    44. Re:Bad? No way. by datGSguy · · Score: 1
      http://www.spamersite.com/?do_you_want_to_increa se_you_bandwich_by_three_full_gb

      No wait! http://www.spamersite.com/?get_your_free_ipod

      --
      Arachninecronymphocranialpheliaphobiacs Anonymous
    45. Re:Bad? No way. by lhaeh · · Score: 1
      Not so clever are all the whiners and speculators who erroneously presume things like the imagened vulnerability of the Lycos tool to HTTP redirection.

      Maybe not HTTP redirection, but it is vulnerable to DNS redirection. If the DNS record for www.moretgage.info is changed then it will DoS whoever it points to. Lycos could be doing it by IP, but if they are then the spammer just needs to get a new IP for their address, something they are used to doing.

    46. Re:Bad? No way. by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 1
      Maybe not HTTP redirection, but it is vulnerable to DNS redirection. If the DNS record for www.moretgage.info is changed then it will DoS whoever it points to. Lycos could be doing it by IP, but if they are then the spammer just needs to get a new IP for their address, something they are used to doing.

      Sorry, no. All that's required to detect DNS modification is to do a forward DNS lookup periodically. If the client does it as a browser would on each new access, it could detect an IP change, remove the target from its list, and report to the Lycos server that the IP of such-and-such hostname had changed. The server could put the item on a short list for immediate reexamination by humans. If the new IP is also a spamvertized web server, the host could go back onto the target list. Otherwise it could be examined periodically by a robot and flagged again for reexamination when either the IP or the content changes again.

      So, so simple. And the beauty of having the client detect the IP change is that clients would continue to hammer the original until the DNS change propagates to them.

      --
      Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
    47. Re:Bad? No way. by Durzel · · Score: 1

      Yep, says "Stay Tuned" here as well.

      Does anyone else find it mildly comical that this screensaver is not only no longer attacking the spam sites it was originally designed to attack, but is also failing miserably at being an effective screen saver. :)

      I wouldn't want to come back to work after a weekend of that grey "Stay Tuned" permanently burnt in to the screen of my LCD, which I can see happening to quite a few people who have installed this blindly on machines around the World.

    48. Re:Bad? No way. by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Would GWB authorize DDOS against non-Republican affiliated endeavors?

      He already has, see a story earlier about DDOSing some of the democratic phone call centers just before the elections with bogus calls to tie up their lines.

      There is also a small check that needs looked into, small, as in $29.6 million. That story, along with all the bank traceable numbers for that check, is being circulated on the net too.

      Mainstream media is in bad need of a cluebat application IMO. Frankly I could give a s--t less what they do with Scott Peterson, there is other, much more important news they are ignoring in favor of weekly rag type reporting. I mean that girl in front of the modesto court house, doesn't she ever sit down to rest her feet, eat, sleep, or pee?

      Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids.

      Cheers, Gene

    49. Re:Bad? No way. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Spammers spelling is terrible. I figure there are 2 possible reasons for it.

      1) They have the spelling abilities of an 8 year-old child.
      2) They are trying to get past spam filters.

      Personally, I favour the former.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    50. Re:Bad? No way. by mikeswi · · Score: 1

      The spammer is using a 302 (temporarily moved) server redirect. The log below is from Firefox, not the screensaver. I don't have the screensaver, so I can't say if it follows the redirect or if it just ends at the spammer's server.

      Although cute, all the spammer is doing is redirecting the few people who would have responded to their spam to a site dedicated to knocking them off the web.

      HTTP log:

      http://www.moretgage.info/

      GET / HTTP/1.1
      Host: www.moretgage.info
      User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
      blah blah blah

      HTTP/1.x 302 Moved Temporarily
      Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Gentoo/Linux) PHP/4.3.9
      X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.9
      Location: http://www.makelovenotspam.com
      blah blah blah

    51. Re:Bad? No way. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      In the short-term yes but in the long term, it should make the business model very costly.

      Imagine if you are paying someone to bring traffic to your site. Now originally, you would get maybe 2000 sessions, of these, 200 would buy your penis extending tablets. Fair enough, you pay the spammer and are happy.

      Now, if you get 600000 bogus hits on top of this, you don't want to pay the spammer for these visits. In fact, the extra hosting costs you will pay to handle this traffic (and the lost business while your site is down) will surely make the business model make less sense.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    52. Re:Bad? No way. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      In light of that definition, perhaps 'lynch mob' would be a better way to describe this.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    53. Re:Bad? No way. by mikeswi · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about that particular company you're talking about. I do have business with several software companies, most of whom have the problem of people signing up as an affiliate or reseller, then sending spam for their product.

      It is in clear violation of their affiliate/reseller policy and when those companies find out about the spamming, they all A.) cancel that company's account and B.) refuse to pay them their commissions. Still, people do it anyway thinking they can get away with it.

      One antispyware company was even joe jobbed by a spyware maker when he started installing spyware that hawked the antispyware. When they found out about it, they canceled his account, refused to pay him and then changed their policy to prohibit ANY affiliate from using email to promote their program.

    54. Re:Bad? No way. by ragnar · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want to come back to work after a weekend of that grey "Stay Tuned" permanently burnt in to the screen of my LCD

      Just to alleviate any concerns you may have, an LCD can't burn in like old CRTs. In fact, no standard monitor has been made in over a decade that has the potential for burn in. Screen savers are entertainment value anymore.

      --
      -- Solaris Central - http://w
    55. Re:Bad? No way. by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      And the evil bit is set!

    56. Re:Bad? No way. by HalliS · · Score: 1
      --


      My other UID is 1337
    57. Re:Bad? No way. by doublem · · Score: 1

      All they have to do to opt out is stop sending SPAM!

      Each SPAM is a fresh opt-in request!

      How cool is that?

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    58. Re:Bad? No way. by oexeo · · Score: 1

      Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they used some sort of common library instead of coding the entire client from scratch. If that's the case I wouldn't be surprised if it does follow the redirect. Also, I never said it would definitely follow it, dumbass.

    59. Re:Bad? No way. by oexeo · · Score: 1

      As I've said before most libraries available (I'm talking about C/C++, I don't know what this screensaver is coded in) which have a HTTP request function do follow the location directive (as default behaviour). I think you are giving Lycos too much credit, in thinking they coded it all from from scratch, instead of using a commonly library which would offer the functionality they need.

    60. Re:Bad? No way. by Durzel · · Score: 1

      Really? I honestly never knew that.

      That kinda shoots my point out of the water then I guess. :)

    61. Re:Bad? No way. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It's amusing to see somebody using slippery slope arguments and supporting death, in fact cruel and unusual, for a non-violent crime.
      Puts you right up there with the people who wanted to nuke Afghanistan after 9/11, then piss and moan about human right violations.

    62. Re:Bad? No way. by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      Aw shucks, you found me out (or did you just take the painful time to go back through my older posts?)

      Yeah, I think the more appropriate response to 9/11 would have been nuclear retaliation. WTF are we doing today? Manufacturing martyrs. For each martyr, we in turn manufacture dozens to hundreds of new recruits for alQ. et al.

      Do I then bemoan human rights violations? Well yeah, I do, considering we're attacking the wrong fucking target(s)!

      The significant difference is that I can do nothing about the GWB led oil imperialism. But in the realm of internet etiquitte, a /. comment here or there might possibly have a positive effect.

      Glad to have amused you. Gotta go now though - the voices are talking to me again, and I can hear them through my tinfoil hat, my tinfoil earplugs, and my tinfoil earmuffs.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    63. Re:Bad? No way. by DJCF · · Score: 1

      My friend's blog's comment system was defaced by linkbots once, on my own server (I provide him webspace for free). This made my slightly angry so we used a script to systematicly request images from the spam sites, like this:

      http://www.freeonlinepoker.com/image.gif?STOP_SP AM MING_DJCF_SYTES_NET

      We went through about 30 gigabytes of bandwidth before they used up their monthly allowance... and then they learnt not to spam our domain.

      Daniel

    64. Re:Bad? No way. by subterfuge · · Score: 1

      "In fact, no standard monitor has been made in over a decade that has the potential for burn in..."

      If the HP monitors I am replacing by the cartload could talk they would call you a liar.

      Nothing personal - just sayin'...

      HP LCDs, on the other hand, don't seem to remain operational long enough to to be in danger of burn in.
      [note for the humor impaired: I know its different technology - it was just a slam on HPs complete shit 1510/1520 series...]

      = : ^ \ >

    65. Re:Bad? No way. by drakaan · · Score: 1
      A couple of things:

      I didn't see that the list was from spamcop but I still would not allow this program to be installed on any of my machines.

      Okay, but it's not like they're forcing the install on you.

      However, I also have my email filters set up good enough that I get maybe one or two spam messages a week so I am not really plagued by the problem to the point that it angers me.

      If your mail filters are running on the senders' machines, then I can see what you mean, short of that, the bastards are wasting my internet!

      Filters are great, but why are they necessary? Shouldn't I be able to say "don't send me anything unless I already told you you could", and feel that it meant more than reciting a random nursery rhyme? You're filtering the messages, but only *after thay've taken up bandwidth, server space and resources, and processing time on your local PC. That blows.

      Looking at the stats for November (postini.com), I see that about 88% of all email sent in that month was spam/UCE/phishing/crap. To help minimize that, would I look the other way over a few well-directed DDOSes? Probably.

      If you're not mad about it yet, it's probably about time that you were.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  2. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's according to Netcraft. Their story is Spam Sites Crippled by Lycos Screensaver DDoS, followed by Lycos Screensaver Site Blocked by Internet Backbones and Lycos Screensaver Site Changed, Now Says "Stay Tuned". F-Secure also says spammers are beginning to fight back by redirecting traffic back to Lycos.

    Come on people, primary sources! This isn't elementary school.

    1. Re:Actually... by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 1
      Isn't it rather easy for Lycos to simply block traffic redirected from a handful of (spam redirecting) sites?

      Unnecessary. The Lycos tool is not a browser, nor does it request any existing document. Metatag redirection never comes into play for both these reasons. The Lycos tool formulates a GET or POST request that cannot be satisfied, stimulating an error response from the target web server. Even if the target were to attempt redirection in the error response the Lycos tool would merely receive the response, not act on it.

      --
      Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
  3. Quick! by powerlinekid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Post the links to the sites it targetted, we can finish them off!

    --

    can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    1. Re:Quick! by pcmanjon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use to use this screensaver but disabled it, it was conflicting with my audio hardware.

      I voicechat a lot using teamspeak [www.goteamspeak.com]

      Every time the screensaver would activate my microphone to other people would become pure static, blaring out their ears. The only fix would be to quit and re-launch teamspeak.

      I voicechat while doing other things sometimes on teamspeak, and it became an annoyance, so I set my screensaver, once again to 'Blank'

    2. Re:Quick! by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      I might also add, I think it's a good thing. If the spam is using the same server as the website -- disabled website = halted spam production = cleaner and safer internet.

      However, this of course doesn't make any difference if they exploit open mail relays.

      Actually, it does, think about it: the only reason spammers continue to do that they do best (spam) is because people actually buy their products.

      If the people who buy their products click a link in an e-mail and get 'this page cannot be displayed (advanced info: connection timed out)' then they won't buy the products.

      If people don't buy the products for a long enough time, that, coupled with the increased bandwidth costs = spammer shop closed down.

      Therefore, DDOS'd sites = safer internet = lycos a good thing.

    3. Re:Quick! by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Funny

      A reverse slashdotting of slashdot? You anonymous coward are a clever one.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    4. Re:Quick! by shdragon · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      "...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
    5. Re:Quick! by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fatality!

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    6. Re:Quick! by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      http://m39.computergearplus.com/ has tried to bring down their traffic costs by making their page a blank page titled 'untitled document' (go frontpage!?)

      http://www.artofsense.com/ claims they were innocent and were targeted anyways.

    7. Re:Quick! by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Art of Sense is the only one of those that still loads. Text from the front page.

      "Welcome to Art Of Sense Studio by Alvi Siren.

      Special note: We are an innocent victim of Lycos anti-spam program and our lawyers preparing a lawsuit against it."

      Does anyone have any SPAM from these guys to debunk that claim?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    8. Re:Quick! by oexeo · · Score: 5, Funny

      All those links are down, do you have any mirrors?

    9. Re:Quick! by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      More importantly, who the fuck would buy THAT CRAP?! A total moron?

      oh, wait, bought something from spam...

    10. Re:Quick! by refactored · · Score: 1
      So how many of these guys are getting paid per unique IP address view of the Ad's they serve up?

      Ah, well, call it a stupidity tax.

    11. Re:Quick! by bdash · · Score: 1

      A quick search on Google returns an example of Art Of Sense Studio-related spam sent to a mailing list in October.

    12. Re:Quick! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me, it seems their marketing campaign has gone the wrong way.

      I don't see any problem with email offers as such as long as they are above board so to speak, for instance because I have signed up for a company, or expressed an interest in a product.

      Up until recently they had an email signup form on the web, and its not difficult to signup anyone you want, the site is quirky enough to raise a laugh amongst friends (I went through a phase of signing up folks to knitting pattern newsletters!).
      (Archive link: http://web.archive.org/web/20040202064714/www.arto fsense.com/signup.html)

      On the signup page, they do state that they never sell emails or pass to others, which considering the whole look and feel of the site (small family art business) seems like a reasonable line.

      Now, if one of those friends was on Lycos and marked it as spam its quite feasible that the Lycos engine has taken it onboard as spam.

      This could mean Lycos makes no distinction between a reasonable prospective mailing from a small reputable company and the hardened multimillion hidden linkage spyware infested crap.

      But then again, I'm possibly very wide of the mark.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    13. Re:Quick! by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully this spam was sent to some Lycos email addresses, which would give them grounds for a counter suit. This is what should happen to any spammer who decides to sue over this. And just because they hired someone else to spam for them certainly does not make them innocent victims.

    14. Re:Quick! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      That mail actually looks pretty normal.

      Hardly spam, its sent with outlook with absolutely no attempt to hide the recipient or what its about.

      I would personally classify that as an update newsletter, and would be confident to mail back and ask to be removed.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    15. Re:Quick! by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Well, if you look at the mailing list it was sent to, it appears to be pounded by spam. The list IS an art list though. The archives appear to have been a real mailing list about art topics *at one time*. Now though, its a huge spam bucket. Perhaps that mail was misidentified, but for whatever reason, that particular list is totally flooded with spam.

    16. Re:Quick! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      As I pointed out elsewhere, they're far from innocent. When you let someone sell your shit, and you turn a blind eye to their tactics, you're responsible by your own negligence.

      So email them at

      studio@artofsense.com
      or use their contact form and cut-n-paste this:

      There's no way you couldn't have known - after all, as you pointed out, the spam contained links to pictures on your site. Your server logs would show a tremendous increase in requests for the pix w/o any corresponding increase in requests for other pages, and without a proper HTTP_REFERER header.

      Of course, why would you complain - after all, your "message" is getting out, thanks to the spammers. It would have been very simple to block requests for images that didn't originate from pages on your site, or send back a graphic saying to please avoid patronizing the spammer - but you didn't.

      Guess the "perceived benefits" were too tempting.
    17. Re:Quick! by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Based on that, the message on the website seems to be right: artofsense.com was only hosting pictures, and was not the website to which traffic was sent.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    18. Re:Quick! by falstaff · · Score: 1

      This link has an interesting twist on the story.

      http://www.artofsense.com/

      Their page says they are an innocent victim. Collateral damage in war talk.

    19. Re:Quick! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I sent a mail to the artofsense people and have just got the following response back which pretty much confirms what you said:

      Thank you!

      One Israeli company tried to resell our paintings and they used spam
      and to save their traffic they put links to images on our site.
      Of course, we have no connection with their spam.

      Best Regards,

      Nikolai

      -------------

      by the way, as other people have also pointed out, my original assessment of the mail itself was wrong. I shall be more on my guard in future.

      The spammed site is offline now, and following the trail isn't making me feel better. I would have liked to find out what it did look like, might have made any disconnection clearer.

      Well, you live and learn :)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    20. Re:Quick! by jmo_jon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Special note: We are an innocent victim of Lycos anti-spam program and our lawyers preparing
      a lawsuit against it. One Israeli company tried to resell our paintings and they used spam and to save their traffic they put links to images on our site. We broke all contacts with them
      and nobody is sending any spam. We have NO connection with their spam.


      You missed an interesing part in your quoute, the part stating "One Israeli company tried to resell our paintings and they used spam and to save their traffic they put links to images on our site" which means there has been spam sent out with their products.

      If they are so innocent they claim, why don't they use their lawyers on the company that sent out the spam and put them in this position in the first place?

  4. Hmm. by digitalgiblet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer...

    1. Re:Hmm. by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      Did you ever see Boondock Saints?
      Those who did, got my point :)

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    2. Re:Hmm. by colman77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's not- it's fighting back. This should serve as a lesson to those spyware kiddies, too. It's about time these malware losers got a taste of their own medicine.

    3. Re:Hmm. by WoBIX · · Score: 1

      Is the murderer home at the time? :)

    4. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So is sending an arsonist after a murderer too. It's still a crime, and makes you no better than the asshole you're going after.

    5. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer...

      I think it is more akin to a group of people going over to a murderer's house and beating him to death with baseball bats.

      Nothing wrong with that.

    6. Re:Hmm. by k98sven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer...

      Yes, but you'd have to make that mass-murderer. Which means all the difference, I'd say.

      A spammer targets millions of people who have to put up with their junk in their mailboxes and on their networks.

      A DDOS attack is thousands of people targeting a single individual.

      Besides, if thousands of people are independently of each other voluntarily accessing these particular sites, then there's no crime in that. (AFAIK, you can't be convicted of 'conspiracy to disable an internet server through requests')

      I don't generally condone vigilante justice, but this is no more criminal behaviour than what thousands of Slashdotters engage in every day. Only with a different aim.

    7. Re:Hmm. by iphayd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't this more like having the entire neighborhood join the neighborhood watch, then post everyone around the perimiter of a pedophile's property?

    8. Re:Hmm. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, they can send you spam for any kind of tenuous "business relationship". Why can't I send them packets under the same terms? If they send me an email, then we have a business relationship, right? I'm just visiting their website... 20349875029375 times.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Hmm. by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 1

      Ah, good 'ol Texan justice

    10. Re:Hmm. by legirons · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer..."

      except without the fires and dead people...

    11. Re:Hmm. by poningru · · Score: 1

      ah yes the ordered and structured legal system of the internet; Spanning many countries and tracking every communication between any two computers. This does not mean I condone the actions of these people.

      --
      Calm down people, its a religion not an operating system.
    12. Re:Hmm. by farmer11 · · Score: 1

      More like sending a postman to murder, by fire, an arsonist who burnt down the post office. As I see it anyway.

    13. Re:Hmm. by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      And our "ordered and structured legal system" works so well.

      Seriously, I think spammers forfeited their right to clean bandwidth when they took my right to it away. Criminals should not have rights. Act inhuman, get treated inhumanely, you know?

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    14. Re:Hmm. by discord5 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, it's not- it's fighting back

      Let's take this to the non-geek world, and compare this to advertising folders that get shoved down your mailbox every day. This is basicly the same thing as going to the companies that distribute those folders, and shoving their mailbox full of folders untill their hallway is full.

      While it might be funny to do this, it's definatly more of a crime than shoving one folder down a mailbox that says "No commercial print".

    15. Re:Hmm. by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      "An eye for an eye" was meant as a layman's rule of thumb for limiting penalties, not increasing them.

    16. Re:Hmm. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      What lesson?
      Those spyware kiddies are having a fucking field day right now!

      They are getting so many hits now from news sites and articles that SOMEBODY is going to buy something from them, all because they have a link in the right place at the right time.

      I'm gonna start spamming if it routinely gets THIS kind of publicity.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    17. Re:Hmm. by halter-da-man · · Score: 1

      While we all love the idea of hitting back at spammers, I don't think this practice should be condoned. I think that these attacks (whether you want to call them DDoS or not and whether they are illegal or not) have _way_ too much potential for abuse. Most people are more than willing to turn a blind eye towards attacks on spammers, but it could easily go further than that. Anything that people really don't like (Microsoft, www.anti-slash.org, the IRS, the White House website) could be a target for similar attacks. While many people might see that as just a prank, it's not too difficult to see a slide to Mafia-style protectionism, where if you don't do X, you will get shut down. Just MHO.

      --
      Cease your hegemonic discourse.
    18. Re:Hmm. by oexeo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think it is more akin to a group of people going over to a murderer's house and beating him to death with baseball bats.

      Nothing wrong with that.

      Of course not! So long as you're ready for more guys with baseball bats paying you a visit (since you are now a murder).

    19. Re:Hmm. by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer...

      Well... it works. Nobody doubts the fact that an arsonist can indeed burn a house down. I just think that it's pure comedy that users step into the same grey area that spammers have built their fortunes on, and spammers start to cry about things being unfair or legally questionable. How many companies spend a fortune on manpower, software, and hardware to keep spam from destroying their bandwidth and storage? I don't have any numbers here, but I would guess that the money spent on preventing spam is much more than the revenue generated by spammers. It may not be long before people put spamemrs on payroll in exchange for them to not spam them.

    20. Re:Hmm. by sfjoe · · Score: 1



      A better analogy would be that it's like sending someone to pour glue down the barrel of a murderer's gun.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    21. Re:Hmm. by abb3w · · Score: 1
      No, it's not- it's fighting back.

      Ah. So it's not sending an arsonist after a murderer, it's sending a lynch mob?

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    22. Re:Hmm. by HybridJeff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, its like telling evreyone on your street to take their own ads and drop them in the mailslot of the advertising company. If I drop off off one add it isnt my probalem that 200 other people did the same thing too. Or 2000, or 200,000 other people.

    23. Re:Hmm. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While it might be funny to do this, it's definatly more of a crime than shoving one folder down a mailbox that says "No commercial print".

      Crime? What crime?! "Return to sender" is a crime now?! When did you become so slavishly subservient to corporate idiocies like "direct mail campaigns" which deforest the planet that you would even dream of this being illegal!?

      And by the way, "no commercial print" is going to get you nowhere. In most places you do not own the space within your mailbox, it belongs to the post office. The laws like this were passed by the "direct mail" lobbysts with the express purpose of spamming you. The difference is that the old-fashioned spammers wear suits and bribe the congressmen. The new breed are anti-social misfits who didnt manage to figure out how to "play the system" like a roulette as most corporations have.

    24. Re:Hmm. by FyRE666 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So is sending an arsonist after a murderer too. It's still a crime, and makes you no better than the asshole you're going after.

      Oh, go hug a tree! You bleeding liberals are responsible for most of the problems now facing us. Parents and teachers afraid to discipline kids, total asshats rewarded for going to court to blame the world for their misfortunes. Shitheal lawyers making wads of cash helping the asshats. Dying companies preying on healthy companies, crying "no fair" at competition.

      Survival of the fittest. Darwinism at work here. The net is evolving to overcome a disease that's been left unchecked for far too long. Scumbags making money pushing porn at 10 year old kids. Maggots sending my 80 year old grandmother viagra, cialis and get poor fast scams. 100 years ago these fuckheads would have been beaten to death by an angry mob. Now they make millions a year as good men have their hands tied.

      Fuck them. Let their servers burn and their wallets shrivel. Let's see the punks make some money fast some other way.

    25. Re:Hmm. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      While I see where you are coming from, how is this different from 10million people showing up on the White House lawn to protest something? Or in front of IRS for days, thus effectively shutting it down? In older days that used to be called "civil disobedience". While it can be abused, there is nothing inherently wrong with a large number of people taking action, specially since we are talking in the worst case someone's website being down. Lives are not being lost and the vigilante remedy in this case is on par in severity with the offence of the villains. They spam so they get spammed. If physical harm was involved here I would be far more inclined to call for more civilized ways of conduct.

    26. Re:Hmm. by djdavetrouble · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's only funny til someone gets hurt.......... then it's hilarious !

      --
      music lover since 1969
    27. Re:Hmm. by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer...


      You could make an analogy to hangin' an accused horse thief without a trial, but there's a significant difference.
      Instead of ending up dead, the accused has a higher than normal bandwidth bill.
      A few thousand bucks, tops.
      If Lycos picks an innocent victim, they could make reparation.

      -- should you believe authority without question?
    28. Re:Hmm. by NetFu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, no, no. You're looking at it in the wrong scale.

      What we're talking about here is like everyone in a neighborhood going to the house of their local Jehovah's witness or door-to-door salesman and constantly knocking on their doors to try to sell THEM something.

      Or an even closer equivalent would be a screensaver that would call telemarketers over and over and over again to "inform" THEM that you don't want anything they want to try to sell you.

      It's an disruptive, pre-emptive attack against people who do the same thing to all of us every day. To equate either act to murder or arson is insane!

    29. Re:Hmm. by Runagate+Rampant · · Score: 1

      It's like breaking the pen of someone who uses exaggerated metaphors.

    30. Re:Hmm. by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think it's more like tens of thousands of people sending the occasional fax to the main reception number of a company that never respects your "no junk mail" sticker on your mailbox.

      Sounds like fun.

    31. Re:Hmm. by shokk · · Score: 1

      One man's eye is another man's life.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    32. Re:Hmm. by shokk · · Score: 1

      Only because the DDoS and the burning take too long to make the point. I'm more in favor of putting the guy through a tree shredder, but not too quickly. That's what some DDoS attacks do to people's businesses, BTW. Might not be a bad thing to do to spammers either.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    33. Re:Hmm. by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. But "eye for an eye" means "no more than an eye in response".

    34. Re:Hmm. by tzanger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's take this to the non-geek world, and compare this to advertising folders that get shoved down your mailbox every day. This is basicly the same thing as going to the companies that distribute those folders, and shoving their mailbox full of folders untill their hallway is full.

      While it might be funny to do this, it's definatly more of a crime than shoving one folder down a mailbox that says "No commercial print".

      Why is it "definitely more of a crime"? Maybe I'm just thick but I have as much of a right to stuff their mailbox as they do to stuff mine. So long as I don't stuff it full of explosives or something what I am doing is being a pain in the ass, but certainly not a criminal.

    35. Re:Hmm. by ModMeFlamebait · · Score: 1

      "Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer..."

      except without the fires and dead people...


      Unless the server gets slahdotted in flames while the spammer stands nearby. Not that I'd care though :)

      --
      Pavlov. Does this name ring a bell?
    36. Re:Hmm. by Viceice · · Score: 1

      I'd rather think of it as controlled burning of deadwood to stop a forest fire.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    37. Re:Hmm. by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

      no, see, it's like this: the spammers WANT massive amounts of traffic, and are willing to spend a lot to get it. At least that's what I have understood from the numbers in my inbox..
      So you could say that Lycos is doing everybody a favor by releasing the screensaver. Free traffic. Lots of happiness for everybody.

    38. Re:Hmm. by stinkpad · · Score: 1

      Besides, if thousands of people are independently of each other voluntarily accessing these particular sites, then there's no crime in that. (AFAIK, you can't be convicted of 'conspiracy to disable an internet server through requests')

      Ummm, no. INTENT is the key. If thousands of people all independently decided to act this way, no crime of conspiracy. If on the other hand, they coordinate thier efforts, (through software that someone has hand programmed in the "target") with the intent to disrupt an buisiness, then those individuals DO conspire to commit a crime.

      The software was written with the INTENT to disrupt spammers web sites. And, some person is choosing and approving the "target". Those people who use this software, INTEND to do harm to a network or web site. And, when you intend to do harm, your actions make very well make you personaly liable for damages.

      Since interstate commerce is involved, shit is most likely going to hit the fan, and it is going to end up in lycos face, I'm afraid.

      While I like the idea of taking down a spammer, we have to stay on the good side of the law.

      Man, I hate spam, but I think lycos is about to seriously fsck itself with this.

      I betcha within a few months, if not weeks, some asshole spammer will sue lycos, and, eventually win more than they ever made spamming. They might even sue the indiviual users of the "screen savers"... Because unlike unknowing zombies of many ddos attacks, these users intended to harm them, and willingly and knowingly conspired with others through the use of software written to cause damage to a buisiness. ( albiet a scum sucking asshat business model imo. )

    39. Re:Hmm. by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the
      > house of a murderer...

      No, it's a perfect example of what justice should be about - people who are affected by a problem getting together to solve it.

    40. Re:Hmm. by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1

      Go for it! Just remember to pick up your shell casings afterwards... ;-)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    41. Re:Hmm. by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      If the spammers don't want 5 million hits a day, perhaps they shouldn't send out 5 million emails a day trying to get people to visit their website.

      Claiming this is similar to arson or murder is nonsense.

    42. Re:Hmm. by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1

      The spammers send out millions of emails every day asking people to hit their site. You are arguing that if their site then gets millions of hits a day, that those hits are a crime? That makes no sense. If they don't want the hits, they shouldn't send the spam.

    43. Re:Hmm. by shokk · · Score: 1

      Meaning that when you get into "dishing out what was done to you" some have different interpretations of what it means to "get even." For one man, losing an eye may mean no longer being able to do the only job he can in order to support his family, thereby impoverishing that entire family. Should the person who took out the eye now have his entire family punished as well?

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    44. Re:Hmm. by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      Who's to say that the offender didn't cause the same to the victim's family, or the family of a wife of the victim's friend? That would mean that the side effect of the offender's punishment hurting his own family is just. But because no human being is omniscient and knows every ripple of every action, we stick with what we can reasonably quantify. And with few exceptions, we find that it tends to work just fine.

  5. Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by stecoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of using Adblock we need Ad-Double-Block. With Ad-Double-Block you wouldn't not only block the image but use spare bandwidth to repeatedly click on add banners behind the scenes. If I understand the article correctly, the software reads your email and sends clicks through to the web sites listed that are in a spam box(?) while the screen saver is on throttling back when the site slows. Of course you should be able to configure the pain threshold for the sites.

    1. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by beef+curtains · · Score: 1

      The only problem with this plan is that, in the process of flooding the advertiser with data requests, you make the referer rich thanks to all the click-thru referal money you helped them earn.

      --
      Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    2. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by penguinboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a little while, sure. But once the ad purchasers realize they're not making any sales on those "clicks" they'll start paying far less per ad click.. it'll all even out.

    3. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by aldoman · · Score: 1

      Who pays for the refer? That's right, the advertiser. It's actually great in two ways as it means they have to pay $$$ to the refer and also pay more $$$ for bandwidth costs.

    4. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by neitzsche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if I hire a spamhaus to advertise my competitor's website...

      Hmmmmm. Needs a little caution, methinks.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    5. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by aralin · · Score: 1
      I was thinking about a spam assassin filter. Parse the identified spam emails for all valid URLs and send modified GET requests to these servers every minute for few days. Just add all new URLs to the queue and remove them in a few days. If you get a new spam, they will get back.

      It would get rid of all these mail-bugs that track working email addresses and also DDoS the phishing sites that collect your bank info. I think it should be done and I might do just that if I get a spare hour. I already have script to gather and DNS/ICMP validate the URLs from my spam folder.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    6. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      So if I hire a spamhaus to advertise my competitor's website...

      Which will promptly cause the following unusual chain of events: the competitor will complain to the cops, who in turn will have to launch an investigation. If lucky, the spamhouse will get tracked down, screws put on it and sooner or later they will give you up in exchange for "reduced sentence". Then you go down. The end result? Both the spammer and you will be out of commission. Otherwise, with "regular" spam nothing ever happens since the cops do not see it as priority.

    7. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree that enforcement is the problem. One could even say that that is the root cause of spam being what it is today.

      But in the meantime, the innocent target website was taken down, and presumably did lose significant business.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    8. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      But in the meantime, the innocent target website was taken down, and presumably did lose significant business.

      This unfortunately is unavoidable and has nothing to do with this particular scenario. Someone for example can start a false campaign about a particular food brand being poisonous. People being cautious will stop buying it. The company will go to the police and track down and then sue the offender and even win but the business was affected. As you can see this scenario is applicable to many other areas of life having nothing to do with spam and internet whatsoever. It is simply: a criminal using some method to attack you.

      So the problem is not inherent to spam and "Joe Jobs" but rather to the whole condition of our society. I personally see this screen saver as the least evil way of going about this since the maximum damage caused here is simply some website downtime. In the long run these types of systems will be much more common (I expect a flurish of new ones now since Lycos led the way) and there is nothing that authorities can do to stop this, hundreds of thousands of people now know that they have the power to effect revenge and they will use that power. In the long run the ISPs and the authorities will have no choice but to act decisvely and swiftly against spammers in order to protect the legitimate businesses. This is a brilliant tactics on the part of Lycos. They just shattered the "status quo" balance. Business as usual is no longer viable. Finally something that ISPs cannot simply ignore and which forces them to act in public good. Only then Lycos-like engines will go away.

      The netizens are finally awake!

    9. Re:Anyone Thinking about a Mozilla Plugin? by neitzsche · · Score: 1

      Well, we'll have to wait and see how this all pans out. I wish I shared your optimism.

      One minor nitpick though, the primary focus of this approach to increase the spamhaus' employers' bandwidth costs. It isn't about bringing a site down (it's specifically designed against that) but instead to increase their cost of doing business. [Yes, I know they have problems with their buggy throttling, but that will work itself out quickly.]

      For the moment, it does seem to be correctly targeting companies that employ spamhauses. I also agree that this particular genie is out of the bottle. For now at least, the targets are crystal clear, thanks to spamcop. And actually, a e-mail client plug-in probably *is* a better solution in that the retaliation is more directly proportional to the amount of spam sent.

      I can only hope that some major business-oriented publishers start touting stories of total financial ruin as a result of using spam for business on the internet. Once spam is eradicated, we can target pop-up advertisers, hell ALL advertisers next.

      Maybe this is the start of a Really Good Thing(tm). Time will tell.

      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
  6. OMG, you're right! by rackhamh · · Score: 5, Funny

    What a horrible thing to do to those friendly neighborhood spammers. :(

  7. Lycos by 00Monkey · · Score: 1

    I don't know why Lycos is all high and mighty all of a sudden, their reputation isn't that great. Granted I dislike spammers more than Lycos but still... something about a pot and a kettle.

    1. Re:Lycos by Norgus · · Score: 1

      The lycos website is plastered in adverts, so yeah.

  8. DDOS? Or manual takedown? by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do we know that the spammers didn't just take their servers offline in response to the attack?

    1. Re:DDOS? Or manual takedown? by colman77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does it matter? Mission (screw the spammers) accomplished either way.

  9. Is It Right? by nukem996 · · Score: 1

    The part of me that hates spammers says "yes its right." The moral part of me says "no its wrong two wrong dont make a right" The fact is it is wrong and illegal to DoS anyone even if they are a spammer. Also remember that many spammers take over machines and they send out spam, so this could be DoSing innocent people. If we really want to go after spammers we wont pay there products and report them to their ISPs for spamming.

    1. Re:Is It Right? by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TFA says that the program attacks sited advertised in the spam, thus the source machine of the UCE is not the target.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Is It Right? by colman77 · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong to kill an enemy soldier? What if you know he's about to kill you? Not that spam is holding a gun held to my head, but at some point we've got to take a stand, you know?

    3. Re:Is It Right? by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      Well first off im a pasifist unless you have absolutly no choose, and here I think there is a better solution(I do not know what it is but im sure one will be found). The stance we should take is by bouncing the spam to the spammer's ISP's admin and/or company who they are spamming for. Urge people NOT to buy from spammers. Urge law makers to have harsh punishments for spammers. All these things are great ways to make a stand without doing something "violent."

    4. Re:Is It Right? by mrcdeckard · · Score: 1

      here's the thing: it's a tricky situation because spammers (and spyware, viruses, etc) are not only annoying, but cost a lot in bandwidth (==$$), but there's no real way to deal with them.

      that is, while i don't think two wrongs make a right, i think what lycos has done has proposed a very possible solution to a very serious problem.

      if we were to dismiss an organized DOS as being "wrong", then what is the alternative? live with more and more spam, and just accept it?

      mr c deckard
      saint louis moe

      --
      "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
    5. Re:Is It Right? by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies physically as well as socially. Everything must be answered for. Waiting for the afterlife to accomplish that, just isn't prudent or helpful to any of us. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

  10. Why spam? by ValuJet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not target other sites like spyware/adware/malware sites like Gator?

    1. Re:Why spam? by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 1

      because i didnt choose to install spam.

    2. Re:Why spam? by TWX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *cough*LycosSidesearch*cough*

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  11. Against spam sites? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1, Insightful
    and raising concerns that the screensaver amounts to a DDoS attack against spam sites.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. They DDoS my inbox, loading pages that they ask me to visit sounds fair.

    --
    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    1. Re:Against spam sites? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Because its illegal, just generates more useless Internet traffic, and may hurt innocent people given that many spammers use zombie machines

    2. Re:Against spam sites? by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      A shame if there are legitimate users impacted along the line. DDoSing one server will fuck up the networks on the way, to the detriment of innocent parties.

      It's like using an uzi to hit a crook at a crowded party.

    3. Re:Against spam sites? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      You're right on all but your last count. These are the websites that are advertised in SPAM, not the NetZombies used to send it.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Against spam sites? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      How long before spammers started including www.slashdot.org, www.yourwebsite.org or whatever in their Spam. By the time the numbers got big enough to hurt the Spammers, they'd also be big enough to do damage to other people.

      Spammers are vile and disgusting, but for the most part they are not stupid. They're highly agile, and know how to get around and explot systms like these.

  12. I honestly don't care by nzgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't care if the spammers' servers are DDoSed. They can take their fucked-up business model and shove it, as far as I am concerned.

    Good on Lycos for finally having the balls to stand up to these guys. The spammers have been stealing bandwidth off all of us for far too long now.

    1. Re:I honestly don't care by jaeson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know that someone hasn't spamvertised a competitors website?

      What Lycos is doing is at best stupid, and at worst illegal. There are better ways to fight spam.

    2. Re:I honestly don't care by Psychotext · · Score: 1

      ...are we even sure if these sites are being taken down by the tool? It would be really easy to write a slighly less kind denial of service tool that pushes those sites that extra little bit neccesary to take them out. Plus, the BBC article doesn't really mention if those sites have just been taken offline rather than being DDOSed out of commission. Of course, the intermittent site is a different story, but what I said first covers that.

      I'm with the parent poster - Screw em. My hope is that Lycos Europe have their legal bases covered and the spammers don't manage to pull off anything clever.

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
    3. Re:I honestly don't care by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because Lycos Europe claim that they hand check all the websites they select.

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    4. Re:I honestly don't care by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      Their goal was to run up the bandwidth bills of spammers. If a spammed site is hosted somewhere with a bandwidth quota they didn't take it offline in the slashdotting sence, they achived their goal

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    5. Re:I honestly don't care by ryturner · · Score: 1

      Yes, semilegal unilateral action is the way to go. I am sure you would also agree with the US war in Iraq.

    6. Re:I honestly don't care by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Good on Lycos for finally having the balls to stand up to these guys. The spammers have been stealing bandwidth off all of us for far too long now.
      Good, now we will begin to spend that bandwidth in a much more usefull way...

  13. Can't have that by Linux_ho · · Score: 1

    It's being a little overzealous in it's effects on the spammer's systems? Maybe they set it up to be proportional to the amount of "legitimate" advertising messages that the user receives from those sites.

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
    1. Re:Can't have that by angryelephant · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. The screensaver works by downloading the attack list off of a Lycos server. I imagine they will be careful about what gets on to that list.

  14. My favorite headline for this story by Migrant+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Lycos Europe denies attack on zombie army

    Lycos head zombie hunter Ash gave a statement today...

  15. Unmoderated system? by rubberband · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As the admin of my mail system's spam filter, I would like to see nothing more than "drag a spammer in to the street and beat them with a keyboard until they repent day" but I worry about this system.

    Who controls the list of "spam sites"? What are the criteria for becomming a victim? I would personally like this process to be transparent before I encourage anyone to participate - I do think they have the best intentions, but the potential for abuse is a bit scary.

    That's what sucks about the spam war.. the good guys have to be careful how they deal with the problem to avoid accidentally screwing someone innocent. The bad guys just double their output.

    1. Re:Unmoderated system? by danila · · Score: 1

      The potential for abuse is not related to anti-spamming activities. I can distribute a screensaver that would DDoS www.cutepuppies.org and www.applepie.org. But the difference is that if I DDoS a good guy, I would get no popular support, I would be an easy target for a lawsuit and every slashdotter would be asking to tar and feather me.

      It's not like anyone is arguing for a law to allow free-for-all DDoSing, it's just that you may do it, as long as you sure everyone will agree, or YOU will face the consequences.

      This is actually like the 2nd amendment - everyone is allowed to carry a gun and is given the capability of killing anyone at will. The idea is that those who kill bad people will be thanked, while those, who kill good people will be punished afterwards.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  16. Mine doesnt work... by Folmer · · Score: 1

    My screensaver (that i run even though i cant get it to run through the proxy i have to use) has been acting weird.. instead of showing a status of the "attack" it writes: "please wait"...
    I think that some spammers put the update server down, and now the screensavers wont stop connecting to some of the sites even though they are down.

  17. What I think will happen by xgamer04 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Spammers will hire scumware authors to write apps that packet sites who target spammers, making the circle complete. Then, the masses (tm) will get infected with the scumware. It isn't that hard to figure out.

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    1. Re:What I think will happen by qengho · · Score: 1


      Spammers will hire scumware authors to write apps that packet sites who target spammers, making the circle complete. Then, the masses (tm) will get infected with the scumware

      Does this remind anyone else of the nanobot wars in The Diamond Age? Where the guy comes back from a night on the town coughing black stuff out of his lungs, collateral damage in the latest skirmish?

    2. Re:What I think will happen by DARKFORCE123 · · Score: 1

      Spammers will hire scumware authors to write apps that packet sites who target spammers, making the circle complete.

      SCUMMware authors. Does that mean I will get such hit titles as Day of the Tentacle and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis ?

  18. Fun, but potential for misdeeds arise by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    Say you start expanding your list with anyone who spams your email. So someone gets mad with Joe and starts spamming and redirecting traffic to Joe in emails. The Anti-Spammers think its Joe that's doing the spamming, and slap his website in the doomed spammer's list.

    1. Re:Fun, but potential for misdeeds arise by numark · · Score: 1

      But Joe's obviously guilty, isn't he? I mean, Anti-Spammers say he is, and they'd obviously never make mistakes or have any prejudices. We should blindly trust Anti-Spammers, because they're doing something we like, and that's all that matters. That is, until Anti-Spammers make a mistake and accidentally add linux.org or Slashdot to their list. Then we hate them, because they're evil and want to ruin us.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    2. Re:Fun, but potential for misdeeds arise by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I used to work for a company that had a customer that had to get police protection after a spammer had spamvertized his site, e-mail address, home address and phone number as a source of for-pay child porn. His mail account had about 30.000 complaints before we blocked it (at his request), and his phone rang continuously for days.
      Thanks for the idea for the next-gen anti-spam measure.

      Now all we need to do is find out the name, home phone number, and email addy for the spammers. Maybe dump some kiddie porn on a laptop that would be "found hidden in a shed" on their property when the cops come calling ...

  19. Worrying by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, spammers are evil scum who need a standard NATO round square in the forehead. But this sort of rough and ready justice worries me. An attack on the network is an attack on the network, period. If this sort of thing becomes respectable where does it end?

    If it is OK to DDoS spamers, who else is it ok to knock off of the net?

    Kiddie Porn?

    Regular Porn?

    Nazi/Skinhead sites?

    Anything YOU think is a 'hate site'?

    Anything ANYONE things is a 'hate site'?

    Anything anyone objects to for any reason?

    Business competitors?

    Political opponents?

    Anyone applauding Lycos for this had better be ready to draw the line somewhere on that list above and defend why their line is the absolute correct one in language all can agree on or that line will creep down at Internet speed.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Worrying by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I draw the line at kiddie porn.

    2. Re:Worrying by k98sven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is OK to DDoS spamers, who else is it ok to knock off of the net?

      "News for nerds, stuff that matters"?

    3. Re:Worrying by arodland · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's not a DDoS, it's just unsolicited bulk requests!

    4. Re:Worrying by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

      line will creep down at Internet speed.

      African internet speed or European internet speed?

    5. Re:Worrying by ookabooka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are absolutely right. Drawing a line will become a problem. I personally hope that Lycos continues this program, and that someone eventually sues. The government needs to step in and solve the spam issue. With lycos going all vigilante, it forces the government to address what it has long ignored. In my opinion, if the government sees a certain site protected under the law such as freedom of speech, then you cannot spam it. If it finds a site's business practices unethical and/or tries to shut it down, let the populus help. My main concern is for overseas spammers, where our government has no control. In the end, you could have the user select what they wanted to "attack", afterall, it is their bandwidth they are "legitimately" using.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    6. Re:Worrying by rackhamh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Poor comparisons. Kiddie porn is illegal, and in many countries so is hate speech. If a user *seeks* those sites, then the user is breaking the law, even if the site itself may not be (depending on where the server is located). But for the most part, those sites don't go out of their way to make unsolicited offers to users.

      On the other hand, if a site is targeting users in a region where the content is illegal (as is the case with spam), and no method can be found to enforce the law effectively (as is the case with spam), then we can hardly get all uppity if users decide to take it into their own hands and deal out a slow and painful death to said culprits (or at least their servers).

      That said, the issue may become a bit shady when people start targeting spam sites from regions where spam isn't illegal. Like... ummm... well, I'm sure there are some out there.

    7. Re:Worrying by SSpade · · Score: 1

      Business competitors?

      According to one analysis of the DDoS zombieware the primary target of it was Yahoo.

    8. Re:Worrying by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      " Yes, spammers are evil scum who need a standard NATO round square in the forehead. But this sort of rough and ready justice worries me. An attack on the network is an attack on the network, period. If this sort of thing becomes respectable where does it end?

      If it is OK to DDoS spamers, who else is it ok to knock off of the net?

      Kiddie Porn?

      Regular Porn?"

      Yeah, but you have to find followers to download such a screensaver. Lots of more people are willing to download a screensaver to target spammers than a screensaver to attack porn sites.

    9. Re:Worrying by Tacky+the+Penguin · · Score: 1

      If this sort of thing becomes respectable where does it end?

      For this kind of a tactic to work, the attacker needs to find a large group of people who are willing to work together to do the job. That will limit the available targets.

      Is it mob rule, or unofficial democracy?

    10. Re:Worrying by phorm · · Score: 1

      I look at it like this: It really depends on the legality of the site at hand and a variety of other factors.

      If the RIAA started DDOS'ing P2P'ers or perhaps warez sites there would be uproar... and one must consider that massive packet flows do affect the net overall.

      That being said, I'd not likely object to slamming a kiddy-porn site off the face of the planet. And in the same breath, I'd very much doubt they could come after you without exposing their own illegal practices. However, if in doing so you nuked a bunch of sites on the same subnet, prepare for legal repercussions. This is the different between blacklists/filters and an attack: blacklists are by subscription and are generally passive (defence), whereas a DDOS is an offensive move.

      That being said, however, it's really quite hard to differentiate between legit traffic and non. Attempting packet-crapflooding is not using the intended access method of a site. Having many many browsers simultaneously load nukemyspammingass.asp off of a spammer's server, it's definately beyond the norm but still accessing the page within the way it was intended (through a browser).

      Basically, I wouldn't worry too much about how these things spread to other targets by intent, but how they can do so by accident just due to traffic volume. Moreover, it's not really much different from what spammers themselves do with a flood of traffic... how could they defend against my hitting their site repeatedly when they've done the same to my mailserver?

    11. Re:Worrying by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An attack on the network is an attack on the network, period. If this sort of thing becomes respectable where does it end?

      It begins and ends when these people contact me without my prior consent or knowledge.

      Forgive those that trespass? Fuck that. Put up a warning sign, and shoot all violators. Plain, fair, and simple.

    12. Re:Worrying by sheetsda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kiddie Porn?
      You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Regular Porn?
      You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Nazi/Skinhead sites?
      You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Anything YOU think is a 'hate site'?
      You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Anything ANYONE things is a 'hate site'?
      You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Anything anyone objects to for any reason?
      You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Business competitors?
      You have to look them up, they don't come to you.

      Political opponents?
      You have to look them up, they don't come to you.

      I draw the line at: If it's actively pestering you without any sort of provocation and without any way for you to stop it by other means, you have my support to knock it off our internet. This is my intuition on where the line is, please poke holes in it so we can move toward the correct solution. Spam is the only thing that readily comes to mind that falls on the other side of this line.

      Spam itself is a form of DDoS attack: when you get enough of them email will become worthless to you, which is exactly how any DDoS attack works at some level.

    13. Re:Worrying by Klync · · Score: 1

      Why is "Regular Porn" on the other side of "Nazi" in your continuum? Are you a Liberal Alabaman?

      --

      ----
      Not to be confused with Col.
    14. Re:Worrying by bteeter · · Score: 1

      Damn it! I needed mod points for this!

      +1 Funny
      +1 Holy Grail Reference

    15. Re:Worrying by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Why is "Regular Porn" on the other side of "Nazi" in your continuum?
      > Are you a Liberal Alabaman?

      No, I am a librarian subject to the Child Internet Protection Act that requires me to control access to porn for both adults and children. But stormfront is still good to go, 1st Amendment and all that. Go figure.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    16. Re:Worrying by evilviper · · Score: 1
      If it is OK to DDoS spamers, who else is it ok to knock off of the net?

      Only those who send me large quantities of data I didn't request, either.

      That pretty much means only spammers.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:Worrying by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      I laughed at that, then realized it's not quite accurate. The requests are indeed solicited by the SPAM messages; they just don't expect more than a 0.001% response level, which is all they need in order to be fabulously profitable.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    18. Re:Worrying by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Cripes, I gotta start reading something other than Slashdot. I just spent five minutes trying to figure out if:

      "I draw the line at kiddie porn"

      was a really sick joke that I didn't get.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    19. Re:Worrying by aralin · · Score: 1

      I had drawn a line, anyone who sends me something unsolicited should expect me to send him something back, which is very much solicited in my opinion. I wish that spamassassin would parse the mails it identifies as spams (10+) for urls and then try to send several modified GET requests to them every few minutes, for a day. I might even write a perl script to do just that. If everybody installs such add-on we are done with mail-id-bugs and all the phishing sites.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    20. Re:Worrying by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Forgive those that trespass? F*ck that.

      You missed my point. A DDoS is an attack against the network, not just a spammer's site. If one of my users gets caught running that screensaver they can kiss their network access bye bye. A DDoS is a DDoS, period. They are abusing MY network, the LA-Net network, their upstream provider, etc. There are no good abuses and bad abuses, just abuses to be shut down.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    21. Re:Worrying by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I draw the line at people who send me unsolicited junk. Especially those who send me lots of unsolicited junk. If they don't want to be hit, don't send out "junk" mail. After all, junk mail is a request to visit their site, and it surely isn't sent out to a "select few", so consider this the many responding en masse, better rate of returns than they could ever have hoped for. :)

      While the other things listed may be illegal in various countries, let those countries deal with whatever's illegal under their jurisdiction. That's not what this move by Lycos addresses.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    22. Re:Worrying by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting routers migrate?

    23. Re:Worrying by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I draw the line at: If it's actively pestering you without any sort of provocation and without any way for you to stop it by other means

      What's "pestering"? Even though the average spammer sends out millions of messages, you youself only get one of them. One message isn't "pestering". On a day when I get one hundred spams, they're coming from only ninety or so spammers. Even if you manage to trace the ultimate origin of them, there might only be ten spammers. That's ten messages. I get more than that from most mailing lists. Heck, I get more than that from my mom forwarding stupid jokes.

      I think the line's definition needs to include the concept of "unsolicited" and "no prior or existing relationship".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    24. Re:Worrying by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The 'network' is being complicit in aiding the spammer. Fuck them too.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    25. Re:Worrying by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      That's not actually that hard.

      If they're selling something, it's not a person speaking their mind/free speech, so screw'em DDOS away.

      Free speech != direct marketing.

      --

      Question everything

    26. Re:Worrying by Suicyco · · Score: 1


      Umm, "the government"?

      Which government?

      All typical spam sites are protected by united states law (I assume you mean the US) as freedom of speech. There is nothing outright illegal about the content of the spam email or websites. That does not mean their prefered advertising campaign is a good thing.

      This is akin to something like the following: Lets say that Walmart had people coming to your door every 20 minutes and telling you about some new deal. Walmart is still a legit business. There is nothing illegal about knocking on peoples doors. But its a huge pain in the ass. So people decide to go into Walmart, and buy 5 items, and immediately take them to the return counter. Again, nothing illegal about that either. But its a huge pain in the ass to Walmart. Fair is fair. You annoy me, I'll annoy you.

    27. Re:Worrying by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Oh, you're just a network admin.

      Damn straight, and I rule with a BOFH's iron fist. Anyone abusing the portion of the network under my control will know my wrath. That is the role of the network admin, I care about the network, very little about the actual traffic passing over it. I track and report my share of spammers and other network abusers to their network admins, who in a perfect world would be just as anal in policing their portions of the network. When we are doing our job right the network flows, the users are happy and we read slashdot.

      It is when asshats and other assorted defectives get control over substantial portions of the network things get messy. Unfortunatly us BOFH types no longer control the backbone so can no longer cut off sites that refuse to enforce descpline on their users.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    28. Re:Worrying by J.+Charles+Holt · · Score: 1

      I draw the line right around the spot where the activity is illegal. So I guess that goes right between Kiddie Porn and Regular Porn. I would assume that the sites targeted by Lycos were committing the kinds of behavior that, under CAN-SPAM, would not be legal.

    29. Re:Worrying by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > I wish that spamassassin would parse the mails it identifies as spams
      > (10+) for urls and then try to send several modified GET requests to
      > them every few minutes, for a day.

      [ mode=flame ]

      Fortunately the authors of SA aren't mental midgets. Use your brain before you actually start coding something that lame. The spammers are wicked and smart, which is why they are dangerous. They adapt. How long would it take them to start adding in a few links to legit sites? They would start of course with their enemies like cauce.org and spamcop.com and eventually add in major sites just to sow confusion.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    30. Re:Worrying by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1
      I agree with you that this is risky, but I'll tell you where I draw the line: the network should only attack in self defence, ie, only attack what attacks it. I think that spam is an attack on the Internet, which is fundamentally built on cooperation. They use that cooperative nature to take without giving back. They suck bandwidth. They've hurt anonymity on the net by making open servers risky propositions.

      The rest of the net should do what it can to cut the fuckers off, in self defence.

    31. Re:Worrying by numark · · Score: 1

      A modification to that analogy would be Walmart knocking every 20 minutes with a new deal, and then you driving to Walmart, finding the parking lot filled with cars, and starting to fill up the parking lot of "Mom and Pop's Grocery Emporium" next door so you can go into Walmart and buy 5 items to return. It may not be illegal, but i bet Mom and Pop would have something to say about you filling their parking lot and preventing them from doing business at the same time. How many of these sites exist on shared servers or share one pipe with other servers? Those other servers, unlucky enough to be on the same bandwidth as an alleged spammer's site, get affected too.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    32. Re:Worrying by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Thats probably true. Perhaps they should find a hosting service that doesn't run sites advertised by spam? I think mom-n-pops grocery emporium has a bigger problem by having walmart next door than their parking space problem.

      The 1000+ spams per week I receive also cost me bandwidth. They also take up bandwidth I share with others at my isp.

      Perhaps two wrongs do not make a right, but it makes me feel a whole lot better.

      The only way for an end user to fight back against spam, is to use the only valid information available to us via the spam content: the web server. All the other information is bogus, so using the advertised web site as a target seems totally acceptable to me. Spam is an attack on my inbox. Fight fire with fire.

    33. Re:Worrying by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Illegal in what country?

      Yours? Mine?

      Remember, the internet, despite having been created by the US, is not under US jurisdiction. And the age of consent (for example) varies widely from country to country, being as low as 14 or even 12 in some nations (in fact, the age of consent is 16 in many US states -- I believe it's even 14 in South Carolina). So what constitutes kiddie porn, then?

      I hate spam, but what makes the net a great place is its decentralized, anarchist nature. I'd rather get a few unsolicited ads for Viagra in my inbox than let some powertripping politicians regulate it.

      I agree with the GP. This is setting a dangerous precedent.

    34. Re:Worrying by 808140 · · Score: 1

      You know, I work in Semiconductors (or whatever field) and TSMC is my competitor. They're selling something, so screw'em. Ima go write up a DDOS program right now.

      Besides, lest you forget "free speech" is not a universally protected right; further more, in all countries where it is a right (including the US) it is a restricted right. There are some things you just aren't allowed to say.

      The internet, as everyone on Slashdot loves to forget, is not the US. What is legal and what is not on the internet is currently very gray. Because it is international, no one can agree on who controls the internet -- the only thing everyone can agree on is that it's not the other guy. So as a result, cyberspace is a sort of no-man's land. There is no justice, there are no laws here, at least none that can be universally applied.

      In my opinion, it is precisely this lawlessness that makes the internet what it is -- it's the unregulated underbelly of society, exposed for all to see. Let the politicians have it, or the corps, and it will become AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy or MSN.

      Do we want that? Fuck no. So resist the urge to take part in vigilante justice, no matter how deserved. Because large mobs instituting their will on others sound a lot like armies to me. And armies lead revolutions. And revolutions impose governments. We don't want one of those on the internet.

      We certainly don't want Lycos deciding who gets DDOSed.

    35. Re:Worrying by VirtuaKnight · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just me, but if the sites are doing something illegal (such as spamming people in states with anti-spam laws, however ineffective, or distributing kiddie porn), then they deserve a little vigilante justice. The government has already shown their inability to control this themselves, so why not take matters into our own hands? If you disagree, please leave your e-mail address, so I can introduce you to a few of my friends/business partners who also think that this is such a travesty.

    36. Re:Worrying by 808140 · · Score: 1

      It's majority rule. We have another term for that: tyranny. At one point not so long ago, the majority of Americans were convinced that black people were fit only to be used as glorified beasts of burden, to be bought and sold as they saw fit. Not much later, the majority saw them as unfit to vote, and not much later, unfit to eat in the same diner or sit in the same part of a bus as a white person. If you think that was long ago, maybe you should call up Rosa Parks and ask her what she thinks about it.

      Recently, we have a huge number of Americans that said they voted for Bush for "moral reasons" (meaning, don't let those fags marry). Now, I'm not slamming Bush here -- intelligent Bush supporters didn't vote for him because they hate gays, presumably -- but my point is that many Americans feel so strongly about homosexuality that they got out and voted to make sure some gay people would never be allowed to marry.

      The mob is fickle. It's great when you're in the majority, and not so good when you're not. We don't want mob rule.

      Understand that in a "majority rules" government, without checks and balances, you have democracy and mob rule. They are, in fact, the same thing.

    37. Re:Worrying by zallus · · Score: 1

      All those other things are abuses of the content of the network, not the medium of the network itself. Those may be disrespectable as ideas, but picture a computer has having its own kind of moral compass, derived from the absolutely unacceptable act of "killing" another computer [a DDoS]. A computer wouldn't be concerned with the kind of data it's transmitting, as long as it, other computers, and the network continue to run smoothly. However, there are some things that the computer itself would object to: Google link farms, Word document attachments, etc. The same kind of things the geeks unilaterally object to. These are, in our minds, minor annoyances compared to the content provided by the network. However, the line should be drawn at what the computer, as the proximate moderator of service, would find egregious.

      --
      I mod down pathetic posts.
    38. Re:Worrying by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      ...even if the site itself may not be (depending on where the server is located). But for the most part, those sites don't go out of their way to make unsolicited offers to users.

      Move down a level to regular porn. Somewhat pushed out to people, illegal in many places, unwanted in many more.
      What if several groups of fundamentalists (Muslim, Christian, etc) banded together and started taking down porn sites in a similar fashion?

      Would we be so understanding?

    39. Re:Worrying by stor · · Score: 1

      Kiddie Porn?

      I don't think a screen saver linking to kiddie porn is such a great idea.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    40. Re:Worrying by taustin · · Score: 1

      The line gets drawn at web sites run by people who can sue them for it. Spammers can't, really. The moment that they do, they open themselves up to subpeonas for their business records, which then become public record. Every time a spammer has reached that point, so far, they've dropped their lawsuit like a hot potato and run and hid in the bushes.

      And even if they do go to a judgement, there's the concept of unclean hands. Juries get to decide how much damage was done, and what percentage of it was caused by various parties - Lycos, the spammer, the pink ISP who hosts them, etc - and the judgement is adjusted by those percentages. $1,000,000 in damage? OK, fine. The spammer is 90% responsible, and the pink ISP is 9.9999% responsible, leaving a judgement of $1.00.

    41. Re:Worrying by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

      Anybody sending out bulk unsolicited emails is a spammer, and that's the line drawn here. I don;t think it's too hard to figure out.

      The screensaver users are collectively giving spammers what they need.

    42. Re:Worrying by Brad+Mace · · Score: 1

      I think the distinction is that spammers are plugging networks by sending massive amounts of crap, while everything on your list is a simple website which waits for someone to come to it.

    43. Re:Worrying by philovivero · · Score: 1

      How about instead of defining the list like that, we define it like this?

      - Anyone who sends out unsolicited bulk email
      - Anyone who doesn't.

      I propose we put the line right between those two.

    44. Re:Worrying by CharlesF · · Score: 1

      > Anything YOU think is a 'hate site'?
      > You have to look this up, it doesn't come to you.

      Penis enlargement offers are obviously hate sites against small penises.

      --
      Do not read this sig!
    45. Re:Worrying by vidarh · · Score: 1

      You're making a lot of legal assumptions based on how the US legal system works here. Lycos might not be so lucky with regards to venue. They might also find themselves sued by ISP's the spammers are customers of, or even ISP's they spammers ISP's are customers of. Assuming that nobody that gets damaged from this will dare sue is naive at best.

    46. Re:Worrying by vidarh · · Score: 1

      And pray tell, how do you determine who attacked you when the headers are unlikely to have ANYTHING to do with the sites linked to? What in your method of linking the two prevents someone from doing a joe job on a random site they don't like (sending out spam pointing you to a legit site in the hope of provoking a bad response)

    47. Re:Worrying by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      African internet speed or European internet speed?

      With apologies to Monty Python:

      Soldier #1: It's a simple question of bandwidth! A low-bandwidth connection could not support a high-bandwidth ddos attack.
      Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
      Soldier #1: Listen. In order to maintain internet speed, a connection needs to route packages forty-three times every second, right?
      Arthur: Please!
      Soldier #1: Am I right?
      Arthur: I'm not interested!
      Soldier #2: It could be connected through the African internet!
      Soldier #1: Oh, yeah, an African internet maybe, but not a European internet. That's my point.
      Soldier #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
      Arthur: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
      Soldier #1: But then of course a-- African internets are non-migratory.
      Soldier #2: Oh, yeah...
      Soldier #1: So, they couldn't bring a spam mail back anyway...
      [clop clop clop]

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    48. Re:Worrying by rackhamh · · Score: 1

      How is porn pushed on people? By spam? Seems we've come full circle. ;)

      By mentioning fundamentalists, it seems you missed my point. The behavior must be ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE in the transgressor's target region for vigilantism to be excusable. Targeting porn sites because God told you to is something else entirely.

    49. Re:Worrying by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      In a lot of countries, porn is illegal.

    50. Re:Worrying by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's trivial. I'm just saying that "where to draw the line" is not a hard decision. I'd rely on groups such as Spamhaus to determine the validity of targets.

    51. Re:Worrying by vidarh · · Score: 1
      And who decides which of these groups are determining targets that are valid, as opposed to pursuing an agenda?

      Ultimately, if you create a system that allows someone to orchestrate attacks on someone without judicial oversight and without letting the would-be victim get a chance to defend themselves against whatever grivances you might have, you're creating a system that is begging someone to abuse it.

      We have courts for a reason. Lynch mobs are no way to get justice.

  20. How can this be 'Too Successful' by mtb_ogre · · Score: 1

    The goal is to flood the sites with traffic to eliminate their source of income. If they shut the sites down all the better. How can anyone who sends out millions of requests for people to go to their website complain about millions of hits on their server? -- Dennis

  21. Not a DDOS by renehollan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    People voluntarily chose to run this, no? It isn't like there's one person using a bunch of machines (with or without their owner's permission) to launch a coordinated attack.

    Rather, it's a bunch of people coordinating their requests for information. At worst, it's civil disobedience (though not directed at government) or an organized, peaceful protest.

    I had a similar idea a while back, where people supportive of a cause could voluntarily elect to permit their computers to engage in simultaneous activity coordinated from a single point. It's cool to see this.

    --
    You could've hired me.
    1. Re:Not a DDOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      DDoS is not defined by the willingness of the parties involved. DDoS is a distributed denial of service attack. Denial of service means that ones service is being denied by another party. Distributed means it comes from multiple sources... just because people are willing to let it happen has NOTHING to do with it.

      If me and 100 people on an IRC channel willingly installed something similar and used it to attack government websites or servers would they call it civil disobedience? I think not.

      Get it right peewee.

    2. Re:Not a DDOS by discord5 · · Score: 1
      People voluntarily chose to run this, no?

      Under the premise that it wouldn't DDoS those sites, which is a crime in most places. In theory, sites not coping with requests and slowing down is nice, in reality that's pretty tricky to do, and may well have opened up a hole for people to be held accountable for their actions.

      At worst, it's civil disobedience (though not directed at government) or an organized, peaceful protest.

      At best this is throwing bricks at a shopwindow and saying : "It was supposed to stop when the window was about to crack".

      I have no love for spammers, but Lycos is playing a risky game. DoS attacks are still punished more severely than spam.

    3. Re:Not a DDOS by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Isn't that like saying it's not okay for someone to pour gasoline on your house and light it, but it is okay for them to organize others, distribute matches and point to your house?

    4. Re:Not a DDOS by pretzelsofwar · · Score: 1

      is it really a peaceful protest if your causing someone hundreds of thousands of dollars, I mean I'm on your side, but lets get our facts strait.

      --
      redvsblue.com
      ::BANG!::
      Sarge: Did you just shoot yourself in the foot?
      Simmons: Yeah I do that sometimes now..
    5. Re:Not a DDOS by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's peaceful. Were it violent, someone would be physically hurt. Yes, let's get our facts straight.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:Not a DDOS by Cuff · · Score: 1

      There is clearly an intent aspect involved which is why it is such a gray area and difficult to legislate. According to AC-know-it-all's definition above, The Slashdot Effect is a DDoS.

    7. Re:Not a DDOS by figgypower · · Score: 1
      It's still a DDOS -- just not maybe in the technical sense. It's definitely ethically questionable. In this case it's something everything can hate, spam. Though, what if this leads to a "wild west" activism on the Internet.

      What if a bunch of pro-lifers decide to "voluntarily" take down any site that is pro-choice (i.e. Planned Parenthood or even hospitals that perform them). Do we really want that?

    8. Re:Not a DDOS by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      No. It's not. Setting a house on fire is illegal. Accessing an internet site is not.

      But launching a DDoS attack on a site is illegal.

      Should encouraging people to access an internet site be?

      So what they're doing is the same thing slashdot does when they provide links? I don't think so.

      They're encouraging people to use their computers to make pointless (or actually, the point is to take those sites down - a DoS attack - or arguably to waste thier resources). So if that's your definition of "access", then yes, it should be, and is, illegal.

    9. Re:Not a DDOS by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Many have made this point, but I will reply to this response.

      I maintain that this is not a DDOS, or distributed denial of service attack, despite the fact that the attacking (accessing?) agents are distributed, and the cummulative effect may result in denial of service.

      However, this only happens if enough people voluntarily chose to run the screen saver. Lycos has not control over how many people do that. It's rather like calling for a picket against some place of business and having thousands of people show up, mill back and forth, and make it difficult for people to conduct business. There is no guarantee that enough people will show up to be disruptive. Furthermore, people can chose to stop participating at any time.

      The effect is distributed, but it sucessfully denying service can't be guaranteed by the instigator: he is providing a tool that lets people access a particular web site repeatedly. There are lots of tools that do that: I have an automatically updating stock ticker on my Fedora Core 2 box, for example. Perhaps a lot of people chose to run a similar stock ticker. Heck, my Vonage locked VoIP ATA hits a .mil timeserver repeatedly (Vonage support personnel insist this is with permission, though why they can't provide their own time server I don't know -- it's not like the ATA should need a stratum 2 clock source).

      Even the argument that a single user repeatedly hitting a web site is "theft of service" fails if the level of that single user's access is low enough to be, by itself, insignificant.

      If anything, this is a DAOS, or distribute access of service protest mechanism. I would not be quick to call it an attack. A peaceful protest is probably the best analogy -- rather like people assembling outside a controversial place of business making it uncomfortable, but not impossible, for patrons to enter.

      What's missing is only the local police showing up to disperse the crowd. Certainly a technical system could be designed where a court can authorise blanket "cease access to this site for this length of time" orders to major ISPs, if this were desired.

      Of course, there may be a legal case to be made against the instigator of such distributed access, if it can be proven that there was malicious intent to disable the target site. I don't think that's the case here: there may be a tort case because the "backoff" mechanism failed, but that does not strike me as criminal.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  22. Spammers attack back? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    BEGIN TIN.FOIL.HAT

    1) What if the spammers are taking down the server(s) deliberately, so that they can claim an effective DDoS? (and perhaps sue Lycos?)

    2) What if they update their DNS to point to 213.115.182.123 (IP address for www.makelovenotspam.com) instead of wherever it is now? /TIN.FOIL.HAT

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Spammers attack back? by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      We don't know how lycos is distributed the lists of targets, if it was down to me I would be distributing an IP address and the hostname the server uses.

      You connect to the ip address and request what you want from the host, the server knows your request the same way an apache vhosted server knows what you want.

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    2. Re:Spammers attack back? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      2. Two effects from this: a) Lycos updates their client to ignore their own IP range and b) the spamvertised site is now advertising for an anti-spam campaign. Sounds good to me.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  23. justice? by blew_fantom · · Score: 1

    for all intents and purposes, DDoS = illegal. but DDoS'ing spammers? i think most of us are willing to turn a blind eye. ;)

  24. Summary of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Netcraft confirms it: Spam is dead.

  25. Re:I realize their point by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    If they do it on someone who is not a spammer they get their ass sued, good enough right?

    Whats to prevent spammers from reporting lycos to their ISPs, well, the ISPs would not be too kind to the spammers either.

  26. Re:Nothing wrong by PaintyThePirate · · Score: 1

    ...Makes the whole world blind. - Gandhi

  27. Collateral damage = bad by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Any time you attack a site like this, there is a risk of collateral damage.

    Imagine two sites in the same city. All traffic in or out of that city goes through one of a handful of backbone pipes. If you attack a spammer enough to flood his backbone, everyone using that backbone will suffer.

    "Good, the backbone deserves it" you say? If the backbone is in a country without spam laws, the backbone may not have any choice unless it wants to risk losing "common carrier" status.

    "Good, the whole country deserves it," well, given what I've seen coming out of a few unnamed countries, you'd have a point.

    Seriously, throttle or no throttle, deliberately pulling traffic from a site for the purpose of making it waste resources is as immoral as getting all your friends to help you steal all the free newspapers on a college campus so the newspaper will have to spend money to print more. By the way, stealing "all the papers" like that is illegal in some parts of the USA.

    Besides, it's ineffective in the long run - within a month, spammers will figure out a way to mitigate the damage to themselves.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Collateral damage = bad by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Your analogies are about as flawed as possible. Common carrier status does not mean that an ISP has to serve absolutely any customer that comes along. Any ISP in any country is permitted to deny service to a spammer. Shutting down a spam site has NOTHING in common with stealing free publications. Those publications do not send themselves to people unrequested and cost the recepient money. You want to talk about wasted resources, talk to a mail administrator and as him how much of his monthly bandwidth bill is due to spammers swamping the connection.

    2. Re:Collateral damage = bad by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      "Good, the backbone deserves it" you say? If the backbone is in a country without spam laws, the backbone may not have any choice unless it wants to risk losing "common carrier"

      Then fucking lose the common carrier.

      I've seen so many companies around here in Aussie that even go as far as to say "We are not a common carrier, we refuse to accept consignments from individuals"

      And so? I presume they are currently doing well enough to say no to money, no?

  28. These vigilante types... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...who are always steamed up because the internet is an unperfect place or someone is billboard posting in some usenet group of you didn't read the faq are going to mad at something forever. Why even run anti-spam screen savers when you could be looking for seti or doing some folding or something useful. 1000 years from now spam and drugs and guns and all kinds of potentially bad things will still exist. You won't. Use your time on something useful.

  29. Re:Think of the servers... by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

    " Sure we're pounding spammer sites, but does replacing one form of useless traffic with another really accomplish anything?"

    Sure, we have double the traffic for a while, but after the spammers die out, this screensaver will no longer need to be used on those dead spammers sites, being removed from the target list and thereby traffic being eliminated.

    See my related post http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131532&cid= 10980078

  30. Quick! by UberOogie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone get the world's smallest violin immediately!

    --
    "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
  31. Re:Bad? No way by Swamii · · Score: 1
    --
    Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
  32. Sets a bad precendent by chiph · · Score: 1

    I'm not too sympathetic to the plight of the spammers, but I think it sets a bad precedent, and will only result in an arms race.

    Chip H.

    1. Re:Sets a bad precendent by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      " I'm not too sympathetic to the plight of the spammers, but I think it sets a bad precedent, and will only result in an arms race.
      "

      Well, since our governments have neglected to take care of spam, we had to take the measure in to our own hands.

      That's what happens when the government neglects to do what they people want it to do.

  33. Re:Wrong answer by colman77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spammers neither detect odors around me, or allow me to walk. They're more like bacteria than a nose or a foot. So, on a side note, when was the last time you took antibiotics?

  34. A new DDOS attack by Random+Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Say you don't like Nabisco (pick company of your choice). Pay a spammer to send out millions of spams advertising Nabisco. Now Lycos adds Nabisco to its list, and all those guys running its web server do a DDOS attack on Nabisco.

    1. Re:A new DDOS attack by pr0c · · Score: 1

      Holy shit you are so right! And what next, the whitehouse site? Microsoft? Oh wait.... thats right, there are probably people with 2 IQ points adding sites to the list. Or do you think that is a fully automatic system? hahahha..

  35. Which is a very good idea... by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... as least until one of your arsonists accidentally burns down the murderer's neighbor's house.

  36. I love spam by sparks · · Score: 5, Funny
    I am always interested in novel commercial propositions. There's nothing I love more than seeing what exciting offers are available in the way of bodily enhancement, alternative medicines, and high-return investment opportunities.

    Don't you feel the same? I'm sure you do.

    Wouldn't it be great if someone would create a screensaver that would automatically visit the websites of the vendors of these enticing offers and display them on my screen? I'm a fast reader so it would be great if it could show a few each second.

    That way, I'd be able to read all about their exciting products without having to do anything at all.

    If there was such a screensaver, maybe lots of people would download it. After all, I'm sure we're all interested in the products on offer. And what e-entrepeneur wouldn't want to have thousands of interested potential customers visit his web site every second?

    1. Re:I love spam by .+visplek+. · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think there's a screensaver that can do that but there might just be a browser that can set you up. It also enhances your Web browsing experience (TM).;)

      --
      - Save a tree, eat more woodpeckers
    2. Re:I love spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called Spam Vampire, google it.

  37. Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by discord5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey, I like the idea of punishing spammers, but Lycos is playing a game that's very dangerous. They're doing DOS-attacks (by proxy) on servers, and where I live that's actually a crime. While sending lots of unwanted e-mail will get you a slap on the wrist, DOS'ing a machine without written consent actually gets you jailtime. Where is the liability here when someone installs this screensaver? Is the end-user responsible for the DOS, or is Lycos responsible?

    Another point on this is that this only brings more traffic to the Internet. I know, what's a few measily packets when people are leeching torrents like mad, but still. While this effectively disables spammers for a while, remember that you can't fight fire with fire (or SYN with SYN in this case).

    And what about machines that accidentally get on the list of machines to be abused? Hey, I know that in theory only bad guys get on the list, but I've had enough customers actually get on an RBL while they don't spam.

    This is dangerous ground we're walking here, and sooner or later someone is going to call their lawyer. The ISP that provides internet access for the spammer perhaps, or perhaps even the spammer who knows that where he lives sending spam is nothing compared to DOS.

    1. Re:Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by Yaztromo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hey, I like the idea of punishing spammers, but Lycos is playing a game that's very dangerous. They're doing DOS-attacks (by proxy) on servers, and where I live that's actually a crime.

      On the original website for this tool, you were asked to select your country from a list in order to download the tool. The list was quite limited -- only some European countries were listed.

      I'm guessing this is because Lycos did their research to determine in which countries potential users wouldn't get into trouble if they ran their tool.

      Yaz.

    2. Re:Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Spammers are powerless to sue anyone for any reason. Can you imagine a jury in the world who would render a verdict in favor of a spammer, against a spamee? You would have to do some very powerful jury manipulation to make this even a remote possibility.

    3. Re:Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      DOS'ing a machine without written consent actually gets you jailtime Two comments: 1) Since they've sent me a spam, they've already invited me to visit their site. 2) If they haven't, how exactly do you get permission to DDoS a machine? Send the company a letter saying "Dear Sir/Ma'am. Do you like the smell of server-slag? Well, then, do I have a proposition for you..."

    4. Re:Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you aren't viewing the sites of people who have sent you spam. You're having a screensaver retrieve data from sites designated by Lycos for the expressed purposed of costing them money.

    5. Re:Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Well can spam be considered a DoS if your on a dialup modem (let's say 28.8) and you get 40 spam emails with images and random text in them? It could take you 45 minutes to download all the crap that was FORCED ON YOU WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, REPEATEDLY, before you can grab that 1 email from your grandma that you've been waiting for all day. If 90% of your bandwidth is chewed up because of all the junk mail, then I would say that it is a Denial of Service, or at the very least, a Degradation of Service.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  38. Look, Maw, a Dupe! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1, Informative

    Way to go, Crackerbarrel

    --
    Yeah, right.
  39. Good, fuck em. by ShinGouki · · Score: 1

    i only wish we could do this to them physically instead of with packets.

    --
    -dk
    Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
  40. Immune system for the internet....! by CnlPepper · · Score: 1

    Its a superb idea, basically allowing the "good" side internet to fight back against the "infected", "bad" side of the internet.

    With this and anti-virus systems its starting to lok like the internet is growing its own immune system....

    1. Re:Immune system for the internet....! by DigiWood · · Score: 1

      A network the size and complexity of the internet would need some sort of immune system response to defend itself from attacks. In a way it already heals itself. This would be the equilivent of white blood cells targeting infected tissue. I say WAY TO GO!

      --


      Nothing is impossible. It just hasn't been figured out yet.
  41. overzealous? by programic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And 25 emails a day advertising V14gra isn't?

    --
    -- yawn. --
  42. Re:Think of the servers... by merdaccia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not useless, it serves a well defined albeit misdirected purpose.

    The problem is that I doubt the spam sites domain names are hard coded into the screensaver. If they're not, the screensaver has to retrieve them from a remote source, and within days the spammers will simply squelch this uprising by DDoSing that source, rendering this entire approach useless.

    --

    *blinking cursor*

  43. They are being blackholed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This: "Lycos Screensaver Site Blocked by Internet Backbones" is true. Some service provider only lists have been full of people disecting the client traffic and the update servers have been blackholed, moved, blackholed again. Lycos will be giving up. Plus it was a poorly designed client.

  44. What does "overzealous" mean? by Che+Guevarra · · Score: 1

    If by "overzealous" you mean hilarious, then yes, its overzealousness has caused milk to come out my nose.

  45. SPAMers Invite you to their site by mtb_ogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not certain how Lycos' software works or where their pool of server names comes from so it's hard to speak to this instance. But If someone sends SPAM to my email account I don't see how they can complain if I browse their site. Now I guess the real question is where is Lycos getting it's list of spammers? If it's some blacklist in their backroom then it's a DDOS plain and simple, on the other hand if it pulls the addresses from the Junk folder in my inbox then I am just responding to their solicitation.

    -- Dennis

  46. No such thing as overzealous by motorsabbath · · Score: 1

    "it would seem it's being a bit overzealous."

    Bull - clobber those slimebags out of existence. Who is gonna take the time to arrest every person on the planet running that screensaver? It's a great idea - I wonder if Lycos is culpable.

    --
    The heat from below can burn your eyes out
    1. Re:No such thing as overzealous by motorsabbath · · Score: 1

      Good grief - simmer down, I was being ebullient, there's a sense of gratification for us here. This isn't murder, it's not even violent. It's at worst "legally gray". If spammers are allowed to use the people's PCs to send spam, then the people have the right to fight back. People all over are running this thing, to say nothing of the news site traffic. The people have spoken. I think it's a riot.

      Serves 'em right, no pity here. And you need to go decaf for a while.

      --
      The heat from below can burn your eyes out
  47. Wanna make some bets by rjelks · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet on how long it takes for a worm to spread around and redirect this screensaver to non-spam targets?

    1. Re:Wanna make some bets by mconeone · · Score: 1

      Why is this an issue? If you get a worm, it could just as easily run code that DDOS attacks non-spam targets.

  48. This sounds all too familiar by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

    Lycos attacks spammers
    Spammers attack Lycos
    Everyone else is caught in the middle

    Tell me, when is chanserv going to step in and take control. This seems as immature as channel takeovers on efnet.

    My advice to Lycos: Dont stoop to their level. No, I dont have the silver-bullet to spam, but as it was illustrated in the last Lycos-antispam-screensaver discussion in the standard "why your anti-spam solution wont work" form, this isnt going to do any good for anyone. Everyone's bandwidth and CPU cycles who downloaded this screensaver are better off doing something defensive in the spam war.

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    1. Re:This sounds all too familiar by deathazre · · Score: 1

      This seems as immature as channel takeovers on efnet.

      You say that like there's actually anything that is mature on efnet.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
  49. False positives? by cschmidt · · Score: 1

    Could Lycos be held liable if they target a legitimate site?

    --

    Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
    1. Re:False positives? by ANeufeld · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be too worried about false positives.

      What of abuse?

      If I wanted to take out (say) FlyByNight.com for (of all things) not offering any night-time flights, I could send out spam on their behalf, safe in knowing millions of zombie screen-savers will start attacking their site.

      Forget trying to break into various machines around the world, to find a few thousand you can make into a zombie for DDoS attacks! Just use the millions where lusers voluntarily install the zombie software for you!

  50. Re:Wrong answer by arodland · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you're happy watching my pain
    Burning crop circles in my souls' razor brain
    We had no love seen but you're cutting to the chase
    You're chopping of my nose to spite my face

    Ow, my nose!
    Ow, my face!
    Ow, my nose!
    Ow, my face!

    Owwwwww!

    --Mystik Spiral

  51. A few bits of info.. by BawbBitchen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lycos is not auto-grabing the urls from the spam. It is having someone open the spam, verify it is spam, verify the end link url for the Viagra or such. Only then is the site added to the target list. Lycos has said that they are not trying to take down the site but cost it money. Seems that they did not write their software right to take into account that everyone and their grandmother hates the spammers and would install it. So a few spam sites went down. I am of the opinion that this is a good thing. They should change their software so it does DoS the site. Having been/worked on large networks I can say that a DoS will 99% of the time only affect the hosting company and the people that sell them the pipe and most likely only at that pipes termination. (Also it is not a true DoS in the sense that the software request the page and completes the transaction!) And I say so the fuck what!?! The hosting company should get screwed for hosting the spammer.

    It is about time we (the collective geeks) do something real about spam. Sure I have SA and all that installed but it is a pain, cost us money (time and hardware). Spammers should be shot. Spammers website should be hacked and cracked and trashed. The companys that knowingly host them should get the same. Their are no laws or police that can fix this chaos we call the Internet. It is up the the users to handle the shitheads.

    It is time to declare ALL OUT WAR SPAMMERS. Let our motto be "Victory or....NO CARRIER!!!"

    1. Re:A few bits of info.. by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > It is about time we (the collective geeks) do something real about spam.

      The only people who can 'do' something about spam are the ones who run the backbone. When they decide doing the "wink wink nudge nudge" game of loudly proclaiming their hatred of spam and signing pink contracts with the spammers isn't profitable anymore spam will end. If all of the major providers started enforcing their published AUP/TOS against their downstream customers spam would vanish in short order. Yes a few examples would have to be made, China and Korea would probably be booted off the network for a week or two, but it would end. Windows zombies would start getting detected and shutdown in hours instead of the current weeks to never. In short, spam is condoned at the highest levels of the network and will continue until that changes.

      > Spammers should be shot.

      Ok, I can't officially endorse that unless their country of residence passes a death penalty on spammers or something. But as in my original post, I certainly dream of seeing spammers with holes in their heads and lots of gibs flying through the air.

      > Spammers website should be hacked and cracked and trashed.

      So long as it doesn't involve an attack against the network in general, I can't find an ethical problem with that.

      > The companys that knowingly host them should get the same.

      So long as it were organized, sorta like the old Usenet Death Penalty, no problem. Just so long as there is protection of the innocent and not a general smash and burn of any provider who gets a spammer loose on their system.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    2. Re:A few bits of info.. by vidarh · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that Lycos a) is admitting to on purpose target specific sites, b) admit that they are coordinating an attack on those sites with the express purpose of costing the sites money. Sounds like any lawsuit seeking damages from Lycos would be a slam dunk, and their officers should be very worried about criminal charges.

  52. I don't see the problem by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

    The lycos make love not spam screensaver isn't a bad thing, nor is it illegal, it is just screensaver based slashdotting.

    Its not sending random packets to the sites, its not icmp flooding them its just quietly viewing them.

    The screensaver is just like adding a couple of hundred thousands extra idiots to the internet who read their spam and visit the websites.

    I don't know what useragent string the screen saver sends, but I hope it looks like a browser, otherwise logfiles of the spammer's sites will be able to target users of the screen saver based on ip address in revenge attacks, which shouldn't be that difficult anyway but I won't go into how since you never know who is reading /.

    Spam is bad, slashdotting is bad, slashdotting spammers? Well I guess two wrongs do make a right!

    --
    Music is everybody's possession.
    It's only publishers who think that people own it.
    Fuck Beta
    ~John Lenno
  53. Berman tried that by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    Last year, Berman tried to pass a copyright measure which would immunize a copyright holder's efforts to stop someone from violating their copyright -- hacking into their system to remove the material, take it off the network, or shut it down.

    1. Re:Berman tried that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *blink* oh, yeah, really clever law.
      RIAA hacks into someone's computer.
      Person has no legal recourse against RIAA
      Person hacks back and knocks the RIAA off the internet / nukes their network / whatever
      The point is that when there's no peaceful resolution (i.e. a court settlement), then everything descends into a non-peaceful solution, i.e. a free for all. And, simply, the RIAA wouldn't have much of a case in the courts against someone for the counter-hack - IANAL but if the person hacked CANNOT defend themselves against it in the courts (particularly if nothing infringing was found) then to hack back to prevent yourself from being attacked is self defence, defence of property not person, but nontheless self defence.

      The other possibility is that with all the hacking and counter hacking going on, firewall and other defensive technology should improve no end, which is good. Eventually the computers will all be locked up so tight that it ends in a stalemate, with a situation identical to that today, except that it'll be because no-one can get into the other's computers, rather than because it's illegal.

      Quite simply, if the law refuses to protect something or someone then the law can't complain when someone or something protects itself. That's got to be written down somewhere.

      Although I'm probably entirely wrong because IANAL at all, in any way, shape, or form.

    2. Re:Berman tried that by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The point is that when there's no peaceful resolution (i.e. a court settlement), then everything descends into a non-peaceful solution, i.e. a free for all.

      Welcome to the Internet. :-)

      No, seriously, the 'net was founded on principles of consensual anarchy. That's the way it has always been, and the way it always should remain. By signing onto the Internet, the spamming companies agreed to join a transnational network that was effectively above the laws of any one nation. If someone wants a protected little world, they should wall themselves off from the 'net behind eight firewalls and never communicate with the rest of the universe. If a whiny, crybaby spam business wants to fight against it, let them try. Next time, the 'net's tendency towards autocorrection will ensure that they get BGP blackholed for all eternity.

      The right solution for solving spam is not one of government. We don't need laws to make DOS attacks on spammers legal because they were never illegal to begin with. They agreed implicitly to accept whatever the Internet threw at them when they signed on. This is the way the Internet has always worked---when polite discourse fails to correct the error of one's ways, the 'net's response is to isolate the problem in the harshest possible manner to serve as an example to others who might choose to also act in ways that are harmful to the best interests of the 'net.

      There's simply no other mechanism for solving this sort of problem other than everyone giving up on unsigned SMTP, and since too many people aren't willing to do that, the only alternative is to simply packet-spam the spammers into oblivion. I say, let their routers burn.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Berman tried that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I *really* like the sound of the phrase let their routers burn. Beautiful. Thank you.

    4. Re:Berman tried that by neitzsche · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The right solution for solving spam is not one of government. We don't need laws to make DOS attacks on spammers legal because they were never illegal to begin with.

      Dude, that is like, what, +500 insightful? I wish I could un-post so that I could mod you up.
      --
      "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
    5. Re:Berman tried that by gokeln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Big problem here. The most powerful win, at everyone else's expense. It seems fine when applied to spammers, but if somebody powerful decides they don't like you anymore, you're off the net, or worse. There has to be some kind of legal protection, as the ubiquitous network becomes a necessity of living, both for the powerful and for the average-joe.

      --

      There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
    6. Re:Berman tried that by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2
      the 'net was founded on principles of consensual anarchy.

      That's right. So maybe we should track spammers down and hold them on the ground while we carve "THOU SHALT NOT SPAM" into their backs with a knife, or, better still, an oxy torch.

    7. Re:Berman tried that by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 1

      Never would've happened if Roddenberry was still alive.

    8. Re:Berman tried that by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Big problem here. The most powerful win, at everyone else's expense. It seems fine when applied to spammers, but if somebody powerful decides they don't like you anymore, you're off the net, or worse.

      Nothing more powerful than numbers. You have to piss off a LOT of people to get this kind of response. Which is exactly what the spammers did.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    9. Re:Berman tried that by sabernet · · Score: 1

      Your point is incorrect. The Internet is based on consensual anarchy. The act of mutilating someone's body is in the realm of reality.

      I hope you were joking because if you were not, it wasn't a very good argument.

    10. Re:Berman tried that by UglyTool · · Score: 1

      I think you forget that we, the rank and file geeks, are truly in control of the internet. A DoS against me would be bad, but if we can (collectively) 'slashdot' almost any server at will, what's to stop us from fighting back against spammers?

    11. Re:Berman tried that by Mant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The net was founded by the military to make a distributed system that could withstand a nuclear attack. It was then used by academia to exchange information. Then the geeks and techie types outside those groups got in on it, finally the rest of the world, including big business and so government attention.

      It certainly went through anarchic times, and is still pretty anarchic, but I think it is a stretch to say it was founded on it. As for above national law, why? Because it wasn't enforced for a while? What is so magic about using your computer and a phone line that means the law doesn't apply?

      If anyone connecting to the net has to take whatever it throws at them, what about on-line extortion? If DOS attacks on spammers are legal, than aren't DOS attacks on everyone? How about fraud, phishing attacks or grooming minors? Do the victims of all these deserve it for connecting to the net?

      Is the self-correcting net going to protect them? Because I don't see any sign of it happening, but I do see people being arrested and charged (and convicted) for these things.

      The ideal of a self-correcting anarchic net sounds neat, but is hopelessly naive, and suffers the same problems as off-line anarchy. Too many people are arseholes, and too many of them can get away things, and too many are apathetic and won't do anything about it. Self correction isn't stopping spam, spam is getting worse. Self correction lacks accountability too, what if an innocent site is targeted by mistake?

      It's clearly a popular idea on /., as you have been modded right up. Doesn't make it smart or means it works.

      Not that I'm convinced governments can stop spam either, I'm not sure what the solution is, but the idea anyone connecting to the net implicitly agrees to anything that they receive through it boggles me. It won't wash in court either.

    12. Re:Berman tried that by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      -- IANAL but if the person hacked CANNOT defend themselves against it in the courts (particularly if nothing infringing was found) then to hack back to prevent yourself from being attacked is self defence, defence of property not person, but nontheless self defence. --

      INANAL either, BUT...
      Self-defense of either person OR property only works when you don't harm the other person or (I *believe*) their property while defending your own. I seem to recall (and this was back in the '90s mind you.) reading in my Law and You class that there was a guy who kept getting his garage/toolshed broken into over and over and over again. He'd call the cops, they'd do nothing but file a report and *nothing* ever got accomplished except this guy having to replace his tools a couple of times a year. SO, he rigged a shotgun to the door. Last I heard he was still in jail for Manslaughter. Also, when I lived in Florida, I was informed by an officer that even if someone stood on your doorway with a gun, you COULD NOT shoot him...he wasn't IN YOUR HOUSE, which was the kicker...they *had* to be IN your house in order for you to defend yourself. So yeah, some of the laws and rules are a bit fucky.....

      As for the spam sites slowing down....somehow, I can't bring myself to shed a single tear about it.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    13. Re:Berman tried that by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      You can bitch and moan all day that once you connect to the net that your downpipe should be filtered by laws and not firewalls but the reality is the net is anarchy.
      case in point: warez, hackers, spam, drones, child pornography, virii, trojens, fake bank sites, etc. there are laws now against all these things in most countries yet has it had any effect on the net? negligible at most. The only real solution on the net is a logical one like the kind you program into the system.

    14. Re:Berman tried that by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Run for president. You'd get the geek vote based on that posting alone.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    15. Re:Berman tried that by gokeln · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, you are referring to the "tyrrany of the majority"? As an American, I am aware that majority rule has its advantages and its disadvantages. The writers of our constitution were keenly aware of the possibility that a majority could dominate and in fact harm minorities. Thus, we instituted the Bill of Rights and a system of Federalism. Even today, it is not implemented perfectly, but it does serve an important purpose: protecting all people against oppression by one of the most powerful institutions: our government (which is democratically elected).

      Perhaps, it seems fair that Lycos has chosen some really bad scumbags to list as the target of the day. However, if this continues, what will happen when they accidentally (or by purpose) select your online business or organization? Or worse, if perhaps some hacker breaks into Lycos and substitutes their enemy of choice for the target of the day? This kind of vigilantism will ultimately harm some innocent person irreparably.

      This is why we have principles such as "no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Innocent till proven guilty, and equal protection under the law. The internet could benefit from some of these same principles.

      --

      There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
    16. Re:Berman tried that by gokeln · · Score: 1

      There is a single point of failure here: who chooses the target of the day? Those who participate in the D-DOS vigilantism are trusting that Lycos has chosen a real scumbag. If for whatever reason the person chosen is some innocent bystander-- say a mistake was made-- then the participants have just done harm to an innocent.

      Additionally, there is often the law of unintended consequences to be considered. How will those attacked in this manner retaliate? It could get really ugly.

      --

      There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
    17. Re:Berman tried that by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      the internet is anarchy because it trancends national borders. I know the current US administration would like to think it is the "One World Government (TM)", but it aint.

  54. But??? by THESuperShawn · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this just add to internet/network traffic? I mean, seti-at-home, et-all, are pretty network friendly. This thing is sending out a full fledged DOS attack. Don't you think this is a little irresponsible, especially to everyone else sharing your cable modem subnet? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but I think there are better ways. Maybe targeting them at non-peak usage times or at random scheduled intervals. There must be a better way.

    --
    Repant. Thy end is sheer.
  55. Re:Why not make this legit .. by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

    What's your web site url? I'll include it in my next mass email!!! Its solicited.... honest....

    Seriously though, do we really want next generation of script kiddies to not even need to know how to run scrips? Do we really want to be able to DDOS of any IP or web site by simply sending out email?

    MAKE SCRIPT KIDDIES LEARN HOW TO RUN SCRIPTS!!!!

    Installing DDOS zombie bots builds character!!!!

    -Em

    --
    RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
  56. This is the stupidest idea ever by NonSequor · · Score: 1

    If this sort of thing escalates, the internet will become unuseable. DDOS attacks affect more than just the intended target.

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  57. Sounds good to me by thedudemrl · · Score: 1

    Why are we so worried about this screensaver bringing down spam web sites? It can only be a good thing for all of us if the spammers have more obstacles to overcome in sending out their trash.

    1. Re:Sounds good to me by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Ignorant goverments do not deserve a monopoly on the use of e-force. TM

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  58. Open Source Version? by MacroMegaMan · · Score: 1

    I love this! How soon can we get an open source version out there to do the same?

  59. As per the poll of late... by missing000 · · Score: 1

    I prefer cutting off your nose to spite your foot.

  60. Re:I realize their point by discord5 · · Score: 1
    Whats to prevent spammers from reporting lycos to their ISPs, well, the ISPs would not be too kind to the spammers either.

    ISPs have to earn money too. They don't care unless the backbone's full or they're not getting paid. Most colocated services in Europe have prices that include a complete rack and x MBit. If you need more, just call them, and within half a day you're up x MBit, no questions asked. Hey, it's your IP range. If it gets RBLed, they don't really care.

  61. The end-user for sure by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Assuming he knew what he was doing, the end user is liable.

    It's like this:
    If I'm a neo-Nazi in the USA and run a Nazi web site, and you live in Germany and mirror the site, you'll be in trouble, not me. I've done nothing illegal, merely immoral. In all likelihood, neither has Lycos.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:The end-user for sure by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Kazaa is in court anyway...

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    2. Re:The end-user for sure by discord5 · · Score: 1
      If I'm a neo-Nazi in the USA and run a Nazi web site, and you live in Germany and mirror the site, you'll be in trouble, not me. I've done nothing illegal, merely immoral. In all likelihood, neither has Lycos.

      Perhaps it could be compared to that, but here we have a law that says it's illegal to encourage people to do illegal things. If you encourage a mob to grab bricks and throw them through windows, and it can be proven that they threw bricks because you encouraged them, then you're also liable for those charges. In fact, in case of a mob you'd be held accountable for the damage the entire mob did, while individual persons under ideal circumstances will be held accountable for their damage.

    3. Re:The end-user for sure by Mesaeus · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Kazaa has angered the RIAA mob. As long as the neo nazis keep spreading hate instead of music, they're fine.

  62. So I guess you really CAN say it this time.... by WebCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT
    the Lycos screensaver is dying (but it'll take a few spammers down with it)

  63. Finally an interesting virus by yorkpaddy · · Score: 1

    I have often thought that virusses are boring. Wow you made my computer not work properly. A five year old can do that with some apple juice. I'd like to see more virus writers like this. Why can't I get a virus that magically installs linux on my computer and makes it look like windows? Make it so good that I don't even know i'm running linux. Make virusses that install software like folding@home and seti@home. That would be cool. Good work lycos.

    --
    "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
    1. Re:Finally an interesting virus by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      It's not a virus.

      It's not even close to resembling a virus in any way.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Finally an interesting virus by yorkpaddy · · Score: 1

      I know its not a virus. But it is an example of a type of malicious program (DDos) being used in a positive way. I should have picked a more relevant topic.

      --
      "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
  64. Is anyone... by Misch · · Score: 1

    Is anyone shedding a tear for the spammers?

    *listens to crickets chirp*

    Okay... just checking. Back to DDOS'ing.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  65. bad, my ass. its brilliant and welcomed by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    If the collective ill will wishes of the spammer's countless victims towards these scum were somehow brought to life, there would be smoking craters and body parts, not just a few plugged up servers.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  66. Joe Jobs happen all the time by davidwr · · Score: 1

    This is called a Joe Job, and it happens all the time.

    The last couple I've received were spam purporting to sell illegal weapons.

    Not only did they make the victim out to be a spammer, but they made him out to be an illegal arms dealer.

    I'm sure some people mistakenly reported the victim to the FBI, who was probably not happy to have to spend time on a false alarm.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  67. Screensaver Travis by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    While the screensaver allegedly throttles back when a site slows, it would seem it's being a bit overzealous.

    Oh, don't be afraid of the word, CowboyNeal. Ruthless. Committed. It does its duty as it sees it, and it sees it clearly. It has no time for the dirty gray areas of net politics.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  68. Fixed list of sites by Ed+Avis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They released the screensaver with a fixed list of sites? I thought it would look through your Spam folder in your mail client and visit each web site mentioned there; a much fairer way to do things and perhaps legally safer too.

    I know someone has previously suggested making mail clients download every link in a message; the idea is that if everyone did this then spammers would even have an incentive to get 'unsubscribe' working. Yes, it does confirm that your address is live; so what, it was on the spam list anyway.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Fixed list of sites by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      now THAT I like the sound of.
      And regarding the domain name linkage, I would simply strip all arguments from the url leaving a cold hard domain.

      Ideally suited to performing the task at hand, and built from your own crap.

      Its like targetted taxation.

      Hey, I might actually start forwarding all my spam to my buddies :D

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Fixed list of sites by Linuxathome · · Score: 1

      through your Spam folder in your mail client and visit each web site mentioned there

      Sounds like a great idea, but the problem also lies with Windows users who use IE -- prone to trojans, viruses, worms, etc. It appears the only safe thing to do is run mozilla or firefox in Linux or Mac OS X and have a program to do what you say. Perhaps a program like that would be a boon to Linux and Mac companies.

    3. Re:Fixed list of sites by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is close to what you're looking for. (It's IE only, though.)

    4. Re:Fixed list of sites by dido · · Score: 1

      What would be better would be to make Thunderbird's Bayesian filter read the site and use the site's content as supplemental information for determining whether a message is spam or not. A filter that fights back. If enough people used this feature it would increase the cost of running a spamvertised site and put a bigger dent in spam revenue possibilities.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    5. Re:Fixed list of sites by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Now that's an idea for a Thunderbird plugin! Strip urls from the spam and have it request the stuff over and over again... I'd use it.

      It has been submitted, but no action so far.
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24563 4

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:Fixed list of sites by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1
      They released the screensaver with a fixed list of sites?

      No matter whether they did that or something else, releasing the screensaver without telling exactly how it obtains its list of targets is the big mistake here. I have heard various theories, one saying that they use a SpamCop blacklist, another that the list is compiled by Lycos staff, and now I'm not inclined to believe either until I see the source code myself.

      Trying to guess how someone else's undocumented software works is a waste of time, unless it's attacking you and you want to neutralize it. If you want it to work, you'd better design it from scratch yourself.

    7. Re:Fixed list of sites by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      I just had an idea.

      I have my own personal mail server, and I use Active Spam Killer to filter my email. (It's a challenge-response system)

      Anyway, I have a cron job that deletes unconfirmed messages over 2 weeks old that were not replied to. What if it extracted all "img src=" URLs from the emails with a REGEX before deleting them, and then auto-generated a Spam Vampire page that anybody could download?

      What if your mail provider did this for you? (though, they probably WOULDN'T want to do this because it would drive up their costs, too)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Fixed list of sites by podperson · · Score: 1

      I think this is a brilliant suggestion, with some further refinements:

      1) If you mark email as being SPAM (a step beyond JUNK) then your machine (only) can start requesting data from the source. This should be manual (but see 3. below since folks are bound to attempt to spoof it).

      2) If you mark email as being SPAM, then this information is centrally stored and provided to other email clients (to help them identify SPAM).

      3) Some kind of karma system can be used to evaluate whether a given source is good at identifying SPAM.

      Clearly item (3) is the ??? step before profit!

    9. Re:Fixed list of sites by AnjelicPheer · · Score: 1

      I want such a plugin! Could you please inform me if one gets made?

      --
      O.o What was that?
    10. Re:Fixed list of sites by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great idea, but the problem also lies with Windows users who use IE -- prone to trojans, viruses, worms, etc. It appears the only safe thing to do is run mozilla or firefox in Linux or Mac OS X and have a program to do what you say. Perhaps a program like that would be a boon to Linux and Mac companies.

      What's to say that you have to use IE? There are many non-visual HTTP libraries out there which simply request content and then don't do anything with it (eg: similar to wget). I suspect a user wouldn't want to have hundreds of open browser windows anyway.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:Fixed list of sites by shdragon · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they use a fixed list of sites. I copied the addresses from the netcraft page stating they were targeted by Lycos & were experiencing outages.

      --
      "...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
  69. Why not? by johnny_sas · · Score: 1
    " but will DDoS attacks against spam websites help to curb the problem of spam?" Why not? It helped them (spammers) curb certain blacklists they didn't like.

  70. This is BAD by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 1

    Not that I like spam, but this is a bad way to combat it.

    Are the spammers breaking the law? The arrest them and haul them into court.

    If not... well, people are just DDOSing them because they don't like them, or what they do. If that's fine, then whats to stop the Right from putting out a screensaver that'll DDOS Michael Moores website? Or the Sierra club from putting out one that slams Exxon? Or Barnes & Noble paying people to run a screensaver that attacks Amazon? Heck, B&N could let you earn credits towards your next purchase by letting your computer slam the Amazon website.

    --
    I am NOT a man!
    I am a free number!
    1. Re:This is BAD by taustin · · Score: 1

      Not that I like spam, but this is a bad way to combat it.

      Yes, it is. But it may not be more bad than any other.

      Are the spammers breaking the law? The arrest them and haul them into court.

      Nearly all spam is outright criminal. Products that don't, and can't work as advertised, drugs sold illegally over the internet, porn marketed to children, child porn, you name it. Nearly all spam is criminal.

      And the feds know it. And flatly refuse to even take a report.

      Your method has been tried, and failed.

      It's time to move on to a new method.

      If not... well, people are just DDOSing them because they don't like them, or what they do.

      And?

      If that's fine, then whats to stop the Right from putting out a screensaver that'll DDOS Michael Moores website? Or the Sierra club from putting out one that slams Exxon? Or Barnes & Noble paying people to run a screensaver that attacks Amazon? Heck, B&N could let you earn credits towards your next purchase by letting your computer slam the Amazon website.

      What's to stop spammers from making email totally useless because it's 99.99999% spam, and you can't find real messages in amongs all the viagra, breast enlargement, child porn and mortage spame? Nothing, so far. Absolutely nothing. You cetainly haven't suggested anything that will.

  71. Now THIS is a great idea by davidwr · · Score: 1

    No court in the land would call that illegal.

    Just make sure you only do it once per inbound email.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  72. Yahoo..Love it when a PLAN comes together by qadmon · · Score: 1

    Cry all you wish BBC but from the first get-go it was understood that the Internet was "SELF-POLICING".

    Well thats just been played out in full view of the world and its finally the one venue that seems to be sucessful against the scrum who steals our bandwidth and forces us to spend endless time and effort deleting their spew and filth.

    Score one for the white hats!

  73. Remember what Mom said? by mikeb39 · · Score: 1

    Two wrongs don't make a right. Cheesy, sure, but I think it's pretty relevant. There's gotta be a better way without doing "wrong" ourselves.

    1. Re:Remember what Mom said? by qadmon · · Score: 1

      Back to the basement SpamBoy.

      Mom really said" Do the right thing." I take it spamming the devil out of innocent netizens is NOT doing the Right Thing.

      Give up the cold pizza,flat cokes and go try to make a 'real living' , is my message to the whiners and basement racketeers.

    2. Re:Remember what Mom said? by shepd · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      Yes, but three rights make a left.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:Remember what Mom said? by shepd · · Score: 1

      There's the American one, where it's the right thing as long as the end result is what makes you happy (forget the means), and there's everybody else's, where the right thing is finding a solution that helps everybody, without bulldozing the middleman (or Iraqi civilians).

      Considering I pay for my internet access, I'm trying to figure out who the "civilians" in this argument are.

      Not me or my ISP, since I'm not stealing bandwidth.

      Certainly not the spammer, who is ruining the internet.

      Are you talking about the routers between me and them? I suppose they could be innocents, but up to now, nobody has extended the internet metaphor like that. It's not like these multi-gigabit routers are being crushed under the weight of this screensaver.

      The only "innocent" party I can see here is the hosting company, and only if they didn't take the spammers money (ie: They were hacked). Of course, in that case, one can only hope they are smart enough to take the website down immediately.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  74. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  75. Active Defense by lax-goalie · · Score: 1

    In the real world, there's recognized right to self defense, an active one at that. If someone is an immediate threat to your life (or sometimes property), you are allowed to use force, even deadly force. For lesser situations, you can still use proportionate and reasonable force.

    So what's the big deal? Spammers steal bandwidth, server resources, adminstrative resources, among other things. The spamvertised web sites brought this upon themselves. They, not Lycos Europe, are responsible for any collateral damage.

    I'm glad to see somebody's finally stepped up to the plate with something like this.

    1. Re:Active Defense by vidarh · · Score: 1

      It's completely different. If someone steals from you, you can't legally steal from them in return. Legal self defense is just that - it applies to protecting your interests, not revenge or preemptive strikes.

  76. if i started something like this by sowdog81 · · Score: 1

    someone would slap a lawsuit on me but since lycos is doing it...

  77. Exacerbates the bandwidth consumption problem by LordByronStyrofoam · · Score: 1

    It may slow distribution of spam, but one of the motivations for eliminating spam in the first place was reduction of bandwidth consumption.

    --
    Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees /. it generates a warning about a badly formed comment.
    1. Re:Exacerbates the bandwidth consumption problem by rkeene517 · · Score: 1

      Nope, it only raises the data use for a short time. Once the spamer stops and the site dies we gat back that bandwidth plus what the spammer was wasting.

      --
      Inside every complex program is a simple solution trying to get out.
  78. Re:nullroute by BawbBitchen · · Score: 1

    I use SPAMD on OpenBSD and all the IP blocks for China and such are in the blacklist. Between that and SA I have cut down the amount of spam my end users see to little or none. However the load of the inbound still is there on my server and connection.

    SPAMD for those that do not know, also screws with the spammers. Take a look at www.openbsd.org for the info.

  79. online lynchings by Random_Goblin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't this more like having the entire neighborhood join the neighborhood watch, then post everyone around the perimiter of a pedophile's property?

    the trouble with mobs and vigilanes though is they are not very just, and can't be relied on not to attack the pediatrician by mistake.

    lynchings are generally considered bad things for a reason, and this is what this screensaver amounts to online lynchings.

    1. Re:online lynchings by iphayd · · Score: 1

      Which was why I intentionally didn't pass judgement on whether my metaphor was just or unjust. Merely, I personally feel that it is a better metaphor than the one that was mentioned before.

      Also, everything in my metaphor is technically legal, however has the distinct possibility (and probability) of becoming something illegal (i.e. Lynching).

  80. How about an email program that does this by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    Why not write an email client that does this. When you get a spam, you put it in a special folder and the client repeatedly accesses the site (a la the Lycos screensaver). That way nobody can be cited for orchestrating a DDoS or unfairly blacklisting. Each recipient can make their own spammer determination.

    Whether the client uses the exact URL in the email (which often has identification codes for the recipient of the spam or the affiliate who sent it) is a matter of debate. On the one hand, I would want the spam site to know that using my email address will only bring it grief. I can only hope that this will cause spammer-using sites to crack down on spammers that are too aggressive. On the other hand, I don't want to identify myself to any spammer or show that my email is live.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  81. About damn time. by readpunk · · Score: 1

    Can we get a non-corporate gpl'ed version of something like this going, please? Nothing and I mean nothing could please me more then locking my box and walking away knowing I'm hitting those fuckers with all the bandwidth I've got.

    --

    ./revolution
  82. Why stop with spammers? by Zarxrax · · Score: 1

    While we're at it, can we just knock off SCO and Microsoft too?

    1. Re:Why stop with spammers? by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as they can do it to /. as well.

      Why not get every person and every site on the net to DDos the entire farking thing off the planet? Doesn't that sound like fun?

      Think about it, there is not one thing on the net that probably isn't an annoyance to at least one person out there.

      If DDOSing a site you don't like becomes generally acceptable behavior, the net is in some serious trouble.

      It's entire foundation of the internet being based on believing that people will generally "play nice" (as it is) is on the verge of causing it's destruction here.

      Lets keep cool heads. Boycott and stop supporting the use of the lycos screen saver and get back to work on a better email protocol!

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    2. Re:Why stop with spammers? by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I generally agree with you, there are a few counterarguments that need be considered:

      "If DDOSing a site you don't like becomes generally acceptable behavior, the net is in some serious trouble."

      Keep in mind that this isn't about sites that we don't like, or sites that offend us--it attacks the sites that CRIMINALS use to perpetrate their CRIMES. Theft of service and fraud are pretty obvious, but I can't believe that most spamming isn't tied into organised crime these days.

      As for the 'net being founded on people generally playing nice together (with some minor checks and balances), well that's what has led to spammers having as much power and as big of a market as they do. They have abused that basic premise, to the point that the net we once knew and loved has been destroyed.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    3. Re:Why stop with spammers? by m50d · · Score: 1
      Yes, *if there are enough people who hate /.*

      That's the difference. A DDOS by nature only works if you can get enough people to participate. So this will not result in the destruction of the net, just of the sites that everyone hates. Which I think is not so many.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:Why stop with spammers? by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      Spamming has only recently become a crime anywhere and is still perfectly legal in most places.

      So no, the spammer sites are mostly just places that "offend" us. We (Lycos) have made NO distinction between the 419 "CRIMINAL" spammers and spammers that do actually have a product (From what I see in my in box it seems to be about 50/50)

      My arguments still stand. What about when the "Moral" "Majority" gets internet literate enough to coordinate a wide scale attack on anything they deem an afront to god? There are certainly enough of them with computers to be able to run the new "Iamforgod" screen saver and take down half the net if they wanted to.

      And today we have the beginings of people finding that sort of behavior (when it suits THEM) acceptable!

      You can't claim morality when it suits you personally. You need to look at the bigger picture!

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  83. What if they fight back? by tirnacopu · · Score: 1

    Hmm.. who is usually installing all sorta crap from untrusted sources? Yes, you got it on the first guess - dumb win32 users with unpatched machines, which are pissed off by the sheer amount of spyware and SPAM already present on their system and who think "yeah, this one sure will get me rid of the annoyances, unlike the other 20 something apps I downloaded this month". What happens when a spammer with hackers on the payroll gets tens of thousands of IP addresses of gullible users with vulnerable machines in the web logs? God, I would keep my domain and happily pay the bill for the high bandwidth usage, just to keep them "retaliation attacks" coming. Give me all you got!

  84. Global Crossing Blocking Access? by csk_1975 · · Score: 1

    According to netcraft GLBX was/is blocking access to the lycos screensaver site. Is this because the majority of DDOS traffic to sites that spammers use in China was transiting GLBXs backbones - sort of telling isnt it? Is GLBX the most spammer friendly backbone now?

    1. Re:Global Crossing Blocking Access? by numark · · Score: 1

      Maybe Global Crossing doesn't want to get involved in petty Internet politics, and is more concerned about people wasting their bandwidth on the latest cause of the day, and an ethically dubious one at that? I understand that it's much easier to come up with a conspiracy theory whereby Global Crossing is protecting those evil spammers (100% of who are obviously guilty; reference the thread higher up about an art site that was added as a false positive and is losing legitimate business as a result).

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    2. Re:Global Crossing Blocking Access? by csk_1975 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe Global Crossing doesn't want to get involved in petty Internet politics

      Except of course by reacting and blocking access to the lycos site they are getting involved.

      it's much easier to come up with a conspiracy theory whereby Global Crossing is protecting those evil spammers

      Except of course Global Crossing does provide international connectivity to many Chinese providers who host spammer sites and Global Crossing's abuse department specifically disowns complaints about these sites when the chinese ISPs are unresponsive.

      Maybe Global Crossing is more concerned about people wasting their bandwidth on the latest cause of the day

      If they were really concerned about this then they could simply block port 80 traffic TO the spam sites when it enters their network, not block access to the lycos site.

      Your argument is really pretty flimsy, it aint no conspiracy, GBLX provides lots of backbone connectivity to spammer sites in china and GBLX blocked the lycos site - ever heard of occam's razor?

  85. Lycos site also down? by jesushaces · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else onticed that the Lycos makelovenotspam site is also down?

    1. Re:Lycos site also down? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the screensaver stays dim with just a "stay tuned" message...

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  86. Open Source Opportunity by mandos · · Score: 1
    Firefox and Thunderbird have some great features, notably extensions. Why not write an extension to Thunderbird for spam. Ideally this extension would add a button to your email next to the "Mark As Spam" button that would:
    1. Open a new Firefox browser and minimize it
    2. Open 10 tabs (or 'X' tabs, user configurable)
    3. Open the first link in the email in each tab
    4. Repeat steps 1-3 for each link

    Then I could use the filtering advantages of Thunderbird to target the people who target me. Perhaps one could even make it a menu option to open all the links in all the messages in your inbox, marked as spam, 10 times in a background Firefox.

    It's not distributed, it's me taking them up on their offer. And since it'll happen when I check my email it shouldn't have the characteristics of a DOS/DDOS. When I'm done I just close a a window. I mean, I'm not really using my bandwidth when I'm sitting there reading my email, and wasting their bandwidth while filtering my email will give me a lot more satisfaction then merely deleting the email.
    --
    Mike Scanlon
    1. Re:Open Source Opportunity by Sein · · Score: 1

      And what happens when someone joe-jobs a site? Ten billion spam messages with mandos.org in them later, you're really wishing you hadn't thought of that solution...

      I've seen too many successful joe-jobs to think that this is even remotely a good idea.

  87. Netcraft has it by irokie · · Score: 1

    See the problem is with the monitoring service. according to the article, Netcraft has it, spam is dead...

    --
    and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
  88. Conflicted feelings by erroneus · · Score: 1

    First: I think it's really wrong to create this attack for a variety of reasons... and it tarnishes Lycos's good name and I think that's the worst of the reason why it shouldn't have happened.

    Second: I am glad spammers aren't having such an easy time of it. They need stronger resistance than they have been getting.

    I wish there were something that could effectively take these people offline. Will this do it? Hell no. It's about as effective as sending bags of junk mail to their home addresses. It'll piss'm off but these people are MILLIONAIRES. They're making their life's fortune this way. At some point, any of them could just quit and live off of their interest bearing accounts... if they weren't so damned greedy.

    I'm still shocked every day to read the news and not hear something along the lines of "Spammer assasinated." Why would it be all that surprising? After all, we hear about crimes commited in road-rage incidents all the time. I'm hoping some Lee Harvey Oswald type just finds himself a nice place to hole up in and snipe at one of these assholes. Would it stop the spam? Dunno... I feel pretty certain it'd slow'm down QUITE a bit though. Here's to the dream.

    1. Re:Conflicted feelings by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      and it tarnishes Lycos's good name

      Lycos had a good name? When? When they had that fucking dog?

  89. War on Spam by Neoporcupine · · Score: 1

    Makes much more sense than the alleged "War on Terror". We know the enemy, we don't have to kill them (yet) to stop them, I can and would contribute to the effort with a clear conscience that this is the right thing to do.

    Sure there may be legal repercussions but I still feel, in my gut, that this sort of thing is the right thing to do.

    Come on George, declare a "War on Spam". I have a speech right here for ya:

    "My war on spam begins with all spammers, but it does not end there. It will not end until every spamming group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

    These spammers spam not merely to waste bandwidth, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every piece of unsolicited mail, they hope that genuine e-mailers grow fearful, retreating from cyber space and forsaking news groups. They stand against me, because I stand in their way.

    I am not deceived by their pretenses to piety. I have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the spamist ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing bandwidth to serve their advertising visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded trash cans.

    My response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated replies. I should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic e-mails to ISP's, visible to news groups, and covert operations, secret even in success. I will starve spammers of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from ISP to ISP, until there is no refuge or no rest. And I will pursue ISP's that provide aid or safe haven to spammers. Every ISP, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with me, or you are with the spammers."

    From this day forward, any ISP that continues to harbor or support spammers will be regarded by me as a hostile regime."

  90. right on! Re:I honestly don't care by swschrad · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    shut the fsckers down, all of 'em. if they can do it to us, we can do it to them. let 'em go back to selling their "italian rolexes" on the streets.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  91. Re:Why not make this legit .. by shawb · · Score: 1

    Problem with this is that the spam itself usually does not come from the spammers computer, but they hijack the computers and internet connections of regular people.

    What Lycos was doing was attacking the vendors who support advertising through spam, either directly or indirectly. The goal of this is to remove the economic benefit from spamming, because then companies will hopefully look at their advertising "partners" a lot closer.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  92. Bring them down is good, but not the point. by slappyjack · · Score: 1

    The thing is you don't want to bring their site down, because that doesnt really cost them as much as incredible amounts of bandwidth will.

    They're used to getting a trickle of the stupid and the curious, and paying with that from the 1 in 30,000 purchases they get.

    By the way, anyone got that URL for the fuckers sending me fifteen offers a day to buy a rolex watch?

    They could use a good ass pounding.

  93. What's really cool is... by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is the second time this week that a major news site has cited Slashdot as a major news vendor and partial source for their story. (The Guardian did a few days ago.)


    We could be seeing a dotslashing (a reverse Slashdot) where this site is bombarded by visitors because of all the links to it.


    The really terrifying part is that non-geeks will get to see how geeks communicate...

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:What's really cool is... by ryanmfw · · Score: 4, Funny
      see how geeks communicate...

      Uh, they probably won't see much communication here...

      Cheers, Ryan

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    2. Re:What's really cool is... by genjo · · Score: 1

      I welcome them with open arms and encourage them to sign-up!

      A massive influx of new /.'ers is the only way some of us will ever get low uid (relatively speaking that is).

  94. How do you know? by sfjoe · · Score: 1



    After RTFA, I didn't see any of the spammers claiming that the Lycos screensaver had taken down their site. Did I miss something? Is the media making up this claim out of thin air. There are a lot of reasons the sites could be down, including the possibility that the spammer's want it to look like Lycos is DDOsing them.

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  95. Re:amazing how one person resigning causes FUD by Kludge · · Score: 1

    Kiddie Porn?
    These people need help.

    Regular Porn?
    Everyone has that.

    Nazi/Skinhead sites?
    These people need some education and understanding.

    Business competitors?
    No, everybody is a competitor to someone else. Some people just need to be less competitive.

    Spammers
    These people need to die.

  96. Sure It Is Right by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    The UCE could well be coming from a taken over zombee Or a site where someone got wifi access (either because it's a public site or by a warspammer). Better to send a message to the person who is the source for the spam - they spam or pay others to spam for them, they also run up a high usage charge on their website that does not net them a return.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  97. doesn't lycos make spyware? by geekbruin · · Score: 3, Informative

    i'm so confused. isn't this the same lycos that has their sidesearch spyware (http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx ?id=453078521)? and if so, isn't this a bit disingenuous to be a anti-spam patriot while perpetuating their own brand of spyware? i mean, really, now.

  98. Wouldn't Call It Illegal by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

    If that's illegal, then what does one do to defend the Slashdot Effect? I guess you could argue that, "It wasn't meant in malicious harm", until someone purposely comes forward stating they linked to Such-and-Such website on Such-and-Such article because they dislike Such-and-Such, and suddenly all Hell breaks loose. I wouldn't call it illegal per se - only if the spammers have every right to DDoS the sites promoting or supporting the DDoS'ing of their servers as well. The freedom of the Internet will always come at a price, but at least it's still better than CAN...

  99. Who cares? by RWarrior(fobw) · · Score: 1

    Spammers don't like this, but they don't care what I want. Why should I care what they want?

    --
    Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
  100. at least one of these sites seem legit... by Poleris · · Score: 1

    anyone have any information on http://www.artofsense.com/? this site at least seems legit. would be bad if lycos were really bringing down innocents...

  101. Huh? Overzealous? Too successful? by bluephone · · Score: 1

    How can this app be too successful when this is exactly what it was designed to do? Are tanks too effective when they obliterate an enemy vehicle? Come on folks, let's stick to reality. Spammers are flooding mailboxes around the world with unwanted packets. If I go more than 12 hours without checkign my email, it takes a loooooong time to get through all the spam. Is that not denying me the service of my email and net connection? No one likes political correctness taken to extremes. It just becomes a parody of itself. People are opting in to visit URLs that spammers put out to the world to visit, this app merely automates this process. It's completely legit, it's just playing the game in a manner less slanted towards teh spammers.

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
  102. Spare me the compassion speech by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
    I think I speak for the millions of zombie PC owners out there whose machines were compromised by spammer's malware when I say

    Revenge is a dish best served cold.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  103. Two great examples by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful
    of why we need to further evolve the internet. Back when it was limited to academics and fringe kooks the server/client model was valid, but as its becoming a broadcast medium it needs to evolve past antiquated notions.

    Universal broadband - even constrained geographically (ie we are all broadband peers in our neighborhood/block/town whatever) will make both ddos attacks and hacking individual machines ineffective. Imagine how popular radio would have been all those decades ago if more listeners caused the radio station to be knocked offline.

  104. Publicity by DigitalBubblebath · · Score: 1


    If anything, it's a fantastic publicity stunt.

    I'd completey forgotten that Lycos existed.

  105. i can see only two ways this could work... by rizawbone · · Score: 1
    and they both suck.

    1) Automated script pulls websites from spam, adds it to list of "sites to ddos/'d-access'". People can get joe jobbed, or fake buried links bog system down.

    2) Some Lycos employee in a back room goes through spam and checks links and enters them into the "sites to ddos/'d-access'" list. He is completely unaccountable to the internet community. Maybe he adds a friends site as a joke on his birthday. Maybe he gets paid off by spammer a to not add his site, but hit spammer b instead. Maybe his bosses get mad at altavista. Maybe he learns he is about to get fired...

    Cute idea, but fucking scary. If someone hacks a webserver/signs up for a cheapo hosting plan and puts up a payment site for his spam, how long do we give the hosting company to take the page down? Anything too soon and were not giving the company enough time to deal with the matter effectively. Anything too long and the majority of the payments have gone through to the spammer. Shoot first, ask questions later or 20% effective?

    The problem with the sweeping generalization fixes is that people are so starved for the final effect they don't see the problems with the implementation.

    Baby out with the bathwater. We're basicly giving a company a botnet and asking them to clean up the internet for us.

  106. Individual DOS is still bad by lamber45 · · Score: 1
    What's with the OP saying the screensaver was "too successful"? Either DOS is OK, or it isn't. One dude trying to login to a military installation's server by trying random passwords over a 300-baud modem is still deliberately endangering national security. Spray-painting swear-words on the back wall of your neighbor's house is still vandalism even if he wears a Nazi uniform to work every day (or he wears a pink dress, or he stands on his front porch and reads the bible out loud, or he knocks on your door once a month to offer you discount Amway cleaning products, or he knocks on your door once a month to offer your son free pot...)

    I have experience with doing something that was, in some sense, a DoS attack. Of course, I had forgotten to set the evil bit...

    The professor of a class I'm taking recently told us to be careful about what screen-savers we download and run; appparently he'd seen some unusual ones in his lab, and he was worried about viruses. His advice might be relevant to the Lycos screensaver, too.

  107. My two cents by Blackbrain · · Score: 1

    I don't care what the justification is, this is a DoDS pure and simple.

    Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do.

    --
    Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
  108. But sir.... by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Spammer,

    I hope you enjoy the packets we are sending you. This is a not SPAM. Previously you opted-in for these packets. If you would like to be removed from our packet list, please turn off your machine. Thank you.

  109. traceroute weirdness by jjeffries · · Score: 1
    Is it just me, or is this a little odd?

    Here's what I get for www.makelovenotspam.com:

    jjeffries@falcor:~$ host www.makelovenotspam.com
    www.makelovenotspam.com A 213.115.182.123

    jjeffries@falcor:~$ traceroute www.makelovenotspam.com
    traceroute to www.makelovenotspam.com (213.115.182.123), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    1 gateway (x.x.x.1) 1.388 ms 0.772 ms 1.496 ms
    2 (x.x.x.181) 10.403 ms 16.325 ms 29.059 ms
    3 553.at-4-0-0.CL1.PIT1.ALTER.NET (152.63.39.186) 30.078 ms 26.343 ms 20.596 ms
    4 0.so-4-0-0.CL1.IAD5.ALTER.NET (152.63.34.125) 30.713 ms 35.189 ms 17.594 ms
    5 500.ATM7-0.GW5.IAD5.ALTER.NET (152.63.43.145) 20.766 ms 22.089 ms 28.399 ms
    6 xa-gw1.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.39.190) 44.347 ms 29.281 ms 22.978 ms
    7 ua-213-115-182-123.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (213.115.182.123) 31.790 ms 35.843 ms 33.322 ms


    Whois:

    route: 213.114.0.0/15
    descr: Broadband Customers in Scandinavia
    descr: Please report improper use to abuse@bredband.com
    origin: AS8642
    notify: noc@bredband.com
    mnt-by: B2-MNT
    changed: hostmaster@bredband.com 20040618
    source: RIPE

    But if you check out this netcraft link you'll see that the IP it knows about is different: 83.241.136.230

    jjeffries@falcor:~$ host 83.241.136.230
    Name: 230.136.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net
    Address: 83.241.136.230

    jjeffries@falcor:~$ traceroute 83.241.136.230
    traceroute to 83.241.136.230 (83.241.136.230), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    1 gateway (x.x.x.1) 1.110 ms 2.266 ms 1.152 ms
    2 (x.x.x.181) 13.181 ms 18.244 ms 13.192 ms
    3 553.at-6-0-0.CL1.PIT1.ALTER.NET (152.63.39.194) 18.160 ms 16.479 ms 23.837 ms
    4 0.so-4-0-0.CL1.IAD5.ALTER.NET (152.63.34.125) 27.729 ms 20.275 ms 17.367 ms
    5 500.ATM4-0.GW5.IAD5.ALTER.NET (152.63.43.137) 23.103 ms 19.935 ms 22.293 ms
    6 xa-gw1.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.39.190) 30.378 ms 29.437 ms 22.138 ms
    7 230.136.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net (83.241.136.230) 18.647 ms 28.862 ms 24.483 ms

    Whois:

    route: 83.241.128.0/17
    descr: DGC Systems AB Stockholm
    origin: AS21195
    mnt-by: DGCSYSTEMS-MNT
    changed: bjorn.osterman@dgc.se 20040427
    source: RIPE

    If you hit those IPs in a browser, you'll get the same 404 error. Traceroutes to adjacent IPs go entirely different directions. This would appear to confirm that MCI is doing something funny with these IPs.

  110. F/OSS version? by Blarfy_Snarflepoop · · Score: 1

    Is there anything like this that could take an RBL or whatever list of targets Lycos uses, and make it a daemon for Unixes/Windows? I don't care so much about the screensaver, but like the idea.

    --
    No sig for you.
  111. Well deserved considering what they have cost us by NuclearRampage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First I'll cite an example from the university I work at. We bought a better connection based on the sole reason that we get so much spam the website was loading slowly. The option of having our email outsourced was looked at, but in the end it was still cheaper to just get a better connection. Are the spammers covering the new cost incurred because their actions? Haha, yea right.

    There was just an article today about how big the market for spyware removal had become. It is well known that some spam sites install their crap when you visit their site, or if the person is using OE or even Outlook 2000 the stuff installs straight from the e-mail. Again, are they forking over some of their profits to cover the costs for this?

    An eye for an eye is perfectly legit in this case since our governments are so slow to do anything worthwhile about the problem. In America we have the right to bear arms and form a militia (under certain circumstances) so what's wrong with us bearing different arms, our bandwidth and computers, and forming a different type of militia to get rid of our enemies?

  112. I can see it now: by Sarcastic+Assassin · · Score: 1

    Lycos Anti-Spam Screensaver... "The SETI for spam"

  113. Innocent victim? by oprahjesserafael · · Score: 1

    Check out this website: http://www.artofsense.com/. To quote the front page. Welcome to Art Of Sense Studio by Alvi Siren. Special note: We are an innocent victim of Lycos anti-spam program and our lawyers preparing a lawsuit against it. One Israeli company tried to resell our paintings and they used spam and to save their traffic they put links to images on our site. We have NO connection with their spam. While the website has no connection with spam, I believe it needs to be taken down out of respect to good art everywhere.

    1. Re:Innocent victim? by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      A great example of EVERYTHING THAT IS HIDEOUSLY WRONG WITH THIS IDEA!!!

      Thank god there was actually a concrete example for all the vigilanti monkeys here screaming for blood so much they don't see that innocent people will get whacked by their activities.

      It seriously disturbs me that seemingly 50% of the respondants here care nothing for other people's rights or for any possible collateral damage they might cause going after their "target".

      All to "America in the 21st century" unfortunately. Makes me ashamed to be one sometimes :(

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    2. Re:Innocent victim? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but think of all websites that are virtual hosted. YOu can't slow down a webstie, but a whole machine. So slow a spammer and all 99 other domains on that machine.

    3. Re:Innocent victim? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      One Israeli company tried to resell our paintings and they used spam and to save their traffic they put links to images on our site. We have NO connection with their spam.

      Translation: we hired a spammer to peddle our stuff to these dimwitted foreigners and, crap, we got caught! Quick, pretend to be a victim!

      As if a slimey "art studio" (kitsch more like it) would ever admit to spamming... gimme a break!

      While "Joe Jobs" do happen, they are rare and one can rather easilly figure out that a legitimate company is being attacked by just looking at their website.

    4. Re:Innocent victim? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Thank god there was actually a concrete example for all the vigilanti monkeys here screaming for blood so much they don't see that innocent people will get whacked by their activities.

      Err..no. The "art studio" is a prollific and long time spammer. But they do apply the standard Israeli method of operation: when you get caught red-handed, you shed crocodile tears and make big eyes and whine and whine and whine about how you are a victim and the whole world is unjustly against you etc etc. This act is wearing a bit thin.

    5. Re:Innocent victim? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      Is it too much for you to believe that Lycos targeted him accidentaly ...Your translation also seems absolutely idiotic if you have no evidence of what you're saying.

      Well, maybe the fact that even I got spam from the Art of Sense craptastic place on several occasions and the site had nothing on the front page to the effect "we appologise, it was not us" back then has something to do with it.

  114. hell yes. by Vitriolix · · Score: 1

    i agree. also, checkout this webpage: http://www.aa419.org/ladvampire.html it basically uses some javascript to constantly download images of fake bank site that are busy raping grandmothers out of their life saving, they have brought 178 site to thier knees so far, and more fall every day. its really badass.

  115. One question by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does taking down a spammer's Web site stem the flow of spam? The two aren't related, and in fact all that's happening is that a hosting company somewhere is getting blasted (not that that bothers me ... host a spammer's Web site and you can just take your lumps.) However, actual spam is sent using open relays and other bits of misdirection and likely isn't even on the same pipe as the Web site. Sure, this sends the spammers the message that we don't like what they're doing ... but one has to assume that they already know that. I guess I don't see what practical purpose this is serving.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:One question by Fjornir · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Simple. Economics! Spam is an attractive massmarketing tool simply because it it so SO cheap. If it becomes common for sites selling through spamvertising to be protested in these virtual sit-ins then two things happen:

      a) Their bandwidth bills go up from all of these bots reloading them, increasing the cost of using spam a LOT.

      b) The people who would want to buy their product are discouraged by long pageloads and sporadic outages, decreasing their revenues.

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    2. Re:One question by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      It hinders spam indirectly. The purpose of spam is to direct someone to something. In this case the something is the websites that are now down because of the Lycos screensaver. These "businesses" will start to think twice about paying spammers to spam when all it does is result in high bandwidth bills and websites that are no longer available. This is a double wammy on the businesses that finance spam, because it costs them money directly as well as reducing their income (because actual customers cannot reach their website).

      It would also be very interesting to see how effective a similar system would be that makes calls to the 1-800 numbers of these businesses. Usually the 1-800 numbers are billed per call, so it could really hit them hard if this could be done via VOIP or simply by modems dialing the numbers directly. That would also swamp their switches and tie up all the operators, effectively making it impossible to get through, in addition to costing them money.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:One question by justins · · Score: 1
      Sure, this sends the spammers the message that we don't like what they're doing ... but one has to assume that they already know that. I guess I don't see what practical purpose this is serving.

      I'm not sure precisely what is meant by "spammer's websites." If it refers to those sites the really gullible one-in-ten-thousand clicks on to get their penis enlarger or ponzi scheme or whatever, then you're arguably helping that gullible person.

      Or keeping them from getting a fun new toy. Not that I am saying that it would be fun. That's not my bag, baby.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    4. Re:One question by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What I meant was that the mail server and the Web servers that the spams link to are different. What I was hoping to see was something that would go after the originating mail server and bury that so the spam won't even get sent. Much harder to identify, I suppose. All this attack is going to do is force spammers to more frequently rotate domains and providers, and will ultimately make them even harder to kill. Evolution in action, you might say ... the rise under pressure as Arthur C. Clarke called it. The idea that it will cost them substantial amounts of money is, I fear, going to prove incorrect. There are way too many spammer-friendly ISPs and hosting services out there waiting to get a piece of the spammers' action. Sure, this will inconvenience them, but won't knock them out. And I know that Lycos is trying to be careful about who they target, but frankly this is a dangerous precedent: a DDOS is a DDOS and the idea that private entities should start attacking each other this way is problematic, and collateral damage will result. I predict that Lycos is going to suffer some serious problems in that regard: sure, they may have a few screen savers but spammers control bot armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands or more.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:One question by Gen.+Rasputin+X · · Score: 1

      b) The people who would want to buy their product are discouraged by long pageloads and sporadic outages, decreasing their revenues. Do these even exist?

  116. Shared Servers? by vwjeff · · Score: 1

    I wonder if any of the target sites are hosted on shared servers?

    1. Re:Shared Servers? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I wonder if any of the target sites are hosted on shared servers?

      Who cares? Perhaps hosting companies will get the message that spam is not welcome and they shouldn't take customers that do it. ;-)

  117. Values by Sindri · · Score: 1
    Yes, spammers are evil scum who need a standard NATO round square in the forehead. But this [DDoS attack] sort of rough and ready justice worries me.

    Shooting them is ok but DDoS attacks worry you? Man your values are fucked up!

    1. Re:Values by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Shooting them is ok but DDoS attacks worry you? Man your values are
      > fucked up!

      There are only a few dozen asshats that account for most of the UCE/Spam on the network. They are all evil/amoral people, and need to be shot after a fair trial. Shooting them would work. DDoSing them only makes more bogus traffic clogging the network.

      Considering the backbone operators are going to keep turning a blind eye to spammers as long as it is profitable, making the penalty extreme is one of the few solutions that would actually work. Imprisoning/caning/really big fines the responsible people at the backbones would also work.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    2. Re:Values by Sindri · · Score: 1

      But it is a well known fact that if you shoot one asshat it will only spawn another.

  118. hell yes. by Vitriolix · · Score: 1

    i agree. also, checkout this webpage: http://www.aa419.org/ladvampire.html it basically uses some javascript to constantly download images of fake bank site that are busy raping grandmothers out of their life saving, they have brought 178 site to thier knees so far, and more fall every day. its really badass. (i hate the /. filters....)

  119. What if... by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems so set against this. What if Lycos distributed software that monitored your inbox and automatically followed any links (after being sanitized first, of course) in spam? Would you consider that a DDoS?

  120. Stupid bloody idea by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Whether you like ads or not you have no right to punish people who choose to support their sites via advertising.

    They aren't forcing you to go to their site, you are requesting it. Blocking adverts is one thing, but intentionally trying to harm advertisers is ridiculous.

    Unless it targets adverts that try and look like system dialogue boxes. Those fuckers deserve everything they get!

    Vote with your feet. Don't like a site's advertising policy? Support a different site with a better one.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  121. So we know Lycos brought them down .. how exactly? by jon3k · · Score: 1

    More likely they saw insert obscene number) of traffic and decided to shut their sites down pre-emptively to avoid the ridiculious bill mounting against them.

    All we know is Netcraft saw them stop responding. I think they might have got the old jump to conclusions mat out of the closet.

  122. Re:In the first /. thread... by cpuenvy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...how does attacking spammers make them better people then the spammers?

    Tell you what. I do not think that the issue is being better than spammers, I think the issue is that it is about time a bit of vigilante justice is done to these bastards. No matter what laws are created, because of the nature of the Internet itself, this may very well be the only way to stop these people currently.

    --
    DISCLAIMER:

    I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

  123. Lycos site down by spammer? by falstaff · · Score: 1

    The Lycos site http://www.makelovenotspam.com/ is down, reportedly by spammers hitting back. They had to see it coming, no?!

    1. Re:Lycos site down by spammer? by cpuenvy · · Score: 1

      Netcraft thinks differently. They say that most of the backbones are blocking it.

      --
      DISCLAIMER:

      I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

    2. Re:Lycos site down by spammer? by Fjornir · · Score: 1
      Which report is saying that's from spammers hitting back? Last I read on netcraft the outages are due to the backbone providers pulling the plug on it.

      Also -- have you got the current IP? 213.115.182.123 not 83.241.136.230

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  124. Re:Well deserved considering what they have cost u by cpuenvy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you are 100% correct, and I applaud your post. You hit it on the head.

    --
    DISCLAIMER:

    I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

  125. OVERZEALOUS? by alizard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    WMDs would be overzealous, since most spam hosts are physically surrounded by companies who not only don't do soam, but are spam victims like the rest of us.

    If your site shares a network with a spammer, time to complain to your feed site. Anyone who puts their customers at risk by tolerating known spammers on their network deserves to lose business or to get sued by their customers. (something along the lines of tolerating a public nuisance which is interfering with your business, I suppose)

  126. DDoS in Japan by calculadoru · · Score: 1

    The funniest thing happened when I installed this screensaver. I work for a subsidiary of a major Japanese carmaker, and our network here at the company headquarters is comprised of about 1,000 WinXP machines (all set to admin rights by default...it's a nightmare, don't ask) plus the assorted SPARC machines for CAD and so on. I installed the screensaver on a whim (had received an unholy amount of spam that day and the BBC headline caught my eye) then was too busy to see what it was doing. When I did look at it, it was doing its thing with pretty arrows and graphs, so I thought, nice, take that you evil scum (besides, it's the company's bandwidth, so...). The very next day, which was when the news about spammers hacking the Lycos server started coming in, our whole network was down. It would come on for two minutes, then go down again for ten, then come back up for two, then go down again, in an endless loop which lasted the entire day. Needless to say, the IT guys started panicking and asked me what I'd done, since I am the one who is usually installing Firefox on every unattended machine, and tossing Knoppix CD's to everyone who wants them - and I for one had to lie and said 'me? noooooooothing'. I still don't know if it had anything to do with the screensaver (I uninstalled it, and the network is fine now), but it was weird.
    Go figure, you start using a funny screensaver that promises to fight evil and end up DDoSing an entire network, your own.

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
  127. wrong parent... ignore [nt] by Vitriolix · · Score: 1

    [nt]

  128. http://www.aa419.org/ladvampire.html by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

    There's a website: Artists against 419, that does the same thing. Interesting tactic, and really, spam eats our bandwidth, so is this turnabout fair play?

    CVb

  129. Re:Why not make this legit .. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    spam itself usually does not come from the spammers computer, but they hijack the computers and internet connections of regular people.
    If the only way to get your zombie box to stop being a spam relay is to DDoS you off the net, you really don't have any grounds for complaint.
  130. A slightly different tactic might be better by Gushi · · Score: 1

    Too bad that couldn't design their system to process the spam that a user actually receives and then use that information to decide which sites to "send traffic to". Much like with the "Do not call" list, if we assume SPAM establishes a "buisness relationship" with that site, they could not even claim the traffic is a denial of service attack, its simply buisness as usual!

    The only caveat is that people could then send SPAM with URLs that *wanted* attacked, but if a central server was setup listing sites that were true spam sources this problem could be avoided...

    Should I patent this? :)

    --
    "DENIAL"-How an optimist keeps from becoming a pessimist- \ \
  131. Open Source community effort? by Equis · · Score: 1

    What's stopping the open source community from creating a desktop widget that does exactly this? It could use the freely available DNS blacklist info to avoid intentional attacks. It could be created and distributed in an entirely decentralized and blameless manner. While it would create more net traffic in the short run, it would be balanced in time by the drop in spam traffic which makes up [insert percentage here] current traffic.

    ...and the geeks shall inherit the Earth.

    /me hearts the Internet

  132. Even the bad guys can route around trouble... by Everard+Took · · Score: 1

    When the net has a problem, it usually routes around the problem. That's why it's "the net". DARPA designed it this way mostly; newer fixes have endeavoured to make it so. Other wise it becomes brittle and subject to breakage.

    So the first thing to remember is that the bad guys will figure out some way around Lycos eventually.

    The second thing is, as others have pointed out, suppose the christian right decides to get their people to do this to porn sites?

    Suppose W. gets his supporters to do this to dissenters?

    Suppose 10,000 people out there shut down whatever YOU hold dear?

    The spammers need to face trial by law; then capital punishment can be administered.

  133. The people who choose to run it... by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are the ones who decided to do that attacks. Lycos just had an idea, it takes computer users to implement it (or not).

    --
    Quack, quack.
  134. They Opted In by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    When someone sends a SYN, you don't have to respond with an ACK. If they don't like it, they should delete those packets and get on with their day.

    Whiners

  135. We need some cool new technology by _iCeb0x_+(1337+and+k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like screensavers capable of emiting EMP's targeted at those spammer boxes. That would be really cool.

  136. Spamming the spammers....sympathy? by TheDoc4 · · Score: 1
    I personally cant stand the constant daily grind of fighting and dealing with spam. No matter how protected I am, something gets in somewhere.

    The tone of the actual front page post amused me....it had a tone of almost sympathetic reasoning for the SPAMMERS? Come on, seriously, they do so much harm and create so much stress and problems for the average joe, right up to the Admin on a network...why not do something about it instead of waiting for constant back and forth of corporations and companies trying to create some kind of UBER (yes, I used UBER) software they can make millions on (which is their real goal, not just fixing spam).

    I for one, dont like the idea of a group of users directing DDos attacks at valid sites / users, but when it comes to Spam, I guess years of dealing with it has worn down any sympathetic ear I would have otherwise had on the subject.

  137. You mean something like... by msimm · · Score: 1

    This? Not that I've ever used that before!

    Seriously though, I'm scared..but I like your plugin idea.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  138. Add these guys to the list!! by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    If your going to take out a site, take out this one.

    http://www.onlinereplicastore.com/

    I get about 20 spams a day from these bozos

    1. Re:Add these guys to the list!! by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      hehe, consider it slashdotted as of 10pm eastern.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    2. Re:Add these guys to the list!! by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      If your going to take out a site, take out this one.

      http://www.onlinereplicastore.com/

      That appears to be some of the same spammers that have been forging my domain name in the headers of their spam. Fucking bastards.

  139. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  140. "... a bit overzealous"?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "...a bit overzealous." Are you an idiot or what? If spam servers anywhere catch fire and melt it's a gift to humanity. Those bastards are a blight upon the entire industry. Nuke 'em!

    "...a bit overzealous." Bullshit.

  141. Re:Why not make this legit .. by shawb · · Score: 1

    And if that zombie box also happens to be an important computer:

    Flight control, medical records, first responders, military operations, etc etc etc.

    Yes, these computers _SHOULD_ be locked down, but randomly attacking computers in which you do not know what operations they are running could lead to a dangerous situation for somebody, and that would lead to MASSIVE liability on your part for any losses.

    And not to mention that sending a DDOS atack against an army of zomby computers would be quite unfeasable, and possibly turn the spammers into turning that army against you and DDOSing you off the net.

    This is probably a fight that is better fought by the government by passing laws, and then investigating and punishing those who created the army of zombies. And finding non-destructive ways of informing operators of zombified machines that their computer has been compromised and then helpind them clean their computer up and lock it down would also be a large help.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  142. AnyONE is not enough by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1
    Anything ANYONE things is a 'hate site'?

    Anything anyone objects to for any reason?

    One person cannot DDOS a site all by themselves.
    These spam sites have only been taken down because sufficiently large numbers of people all have the same opinion of them.

    What we are seeing is democracy in action.

  143. They've already done #2 by davidwr · · Score: 1

    According to this it's already happened:

    Spammers fight back Posted by Alexey @ 09:37 GMT

    In an interesting twist, apparently one of the spam sites under attack from Lycos' "Make Love not Spam" operation has turned the tables. The front page of a spammer site called www.moretgage.info (which used to sell cheap mortgage loans) has been changed to contain a Meta Refresh tag, redirecting all web traffic to...www.makelovenotspam.com.

    As an end result, depending on how the Lycos client works, the screen savers downloaded from makelovenotspam.com might be attacking the download site itself.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:They've already done #2 by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Gee, wouldn't that more effective if they redirected to Lycos itself, and perhaps loaded the query string with a really resource intensive query? Targeting makelovenotspam.com is attacking the red cape instead of the matador.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  144. Ripe for abuse by Arcturax · · Score: 1

    Just wait until the hacked versions come out that target the RIAA or MPAA. Which will be funny until the trolls come up with one which targets /.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  145. This is a temporary attack that might be effective by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    I don't see this working for very long. For technical or legal reasons... However, here's what's going to happen. A few spammers are going to get hit with huge hosting bills and they won't pay them. So now they've got collectors breathing down their neck for money and hosts realize that spammers are scum business not worth keeping because they don't pay their bills.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  146. Re:Guilty until proven innocent? by SyncNine · · Score: 1

    It's very easy for the guilty to proclaim their innocence.

    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying take it with a grain of salt. I could send out 100,000,000 e-mails and then say I had nothing to do with it .... Would it still be wrong to DDoS me?

    --
    To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
  147. Advise use black paper with the ends taped togethe by Portal1 · · Score: 1

    Advise use black paper with the ends taped together
    when you do this the inkt will soon run out.
    I only hope they have no electronic storage.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
  148. Yeah... by alexandre · · Score: 1

    uncontrolled western like space... welcome to the internet! let's rock *evil grin*

  149. Re:Why not make this legit .. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    And if that zombie box also happens to be an important computer:

    Flight control, medical records, first responders, military operations, etc etc etc.
    ... all the more reason to take it down asap. This way, the operators will hopefully realize that there's something wrong with their POS and fix it before it's needed for something critical.

    Now, back to reality - the VAST majority of zombie boxes are courtesy of Bill Gates and Co. Micrososft specifically warns against using their products in so-called "critical" situations, same as Sun does with Java - "Do not use for operating nuclear power plants, yada yada yada ..."

  150. In your face. Spammers. by kiljoy001 · · Score: 1

    While I know it's legally right, justice has been served - now in the USA, the spamees' spam YOU!

  151. Internet Lawless ??? by K.Bu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, seriously, the 'net was founded on principles of consensual anarchy.

    By signing onto the Internet, the spamming companies agreed to join a transnational network that was effectively above the laws of any one nation.


    My Friend, there is another transnational network that have existed way before Internet. In your country, I think it was AT&T who built it (not sure). This network, even if transnational, was not "lawless". The IP adress is now what was the telephone number, but you are still under the constraints of the law, the law of your country and if you are not american, the law of your country plus the law of the country you communicate with...

    Interresting reading to finally iron this perception that there is a "cyberspace", different from the "meatspace".

    I think most geeks that can't get a girlfriend would love to have a different world, where they can do all those wonderfull things that could finally impress some girls... Sorry my friend, there is no such world.

    I don't get how you could get rated Insightful...
    The Internet might have been wild in his early age, but as he goes mainstream, the legal crowd will order rules, with time passing, until it is fully ruled under national laws...

    Interresting reading for you my friend (In english, I'm not too cruel with you, you see !) :
    HERE

    Note : I'm not against US, like the author, but his point is still valid. Meatspace rules, Cyberspace is an illusion...

    --

    ---
    By the way I apologies my dear US friend, I'm French...
  152. Too little or too much. How about real impact? by mattr · · Score: 1

    This is just being silly. Obviously if it has no impact on spammers then it is useless, and if it does have an impact (stealing resources from the spammer) then a spammer can in many countries fight back legally.

    Lycos can 1) just swallow any legal claims and call it a PR expense, 2) do (1) and settle for cash with them without telling people, or 3) intentionally play a gray-area game with a slight tendency to go overboard, hence the impact on 3 spammers. This last game option attempts to maximimize PR impact (which requires at least 1 or 2 spammers be shut down temporarily) while minimizing legal costs.

    It is not clear whether "throttling" actually means Lycos throws away some of your interaction to make it easier for some spammers.

    It is also not clear whether any real hardship is borne by spammers and whether it has any real impact on the number of emails in the mailboxes of participants and the general public.

    The problems with this are 1) you have to have a lot of people continually using this for as long as you want spammers out of commission, 2) it is hard to measure whether a given spammer is really out of business, 3) it is either too little or too much. The only clear winner is lycos.

    If net vigilantism is allowed then you will get certain religious and political groupings doing the same thing. And spammers could go after Lycos! Or after individual users, y'know?

    Now if you are of the legal opinion that this is fully justified due to 1) established business relationship, 2) they are denying me service, 3) the net routes around obstacles and the net is my karma, or 4) pry my fiber out of my cold dead hands (well that sounds like 3 a little), just put an updated list of spammers' IPs on a site I think you would get a much nicer DDoS in no time with less liability.

    I also move that Lycos add this to their list of community services. They break the list into three sections: Active Spammers, Spam-supporting ISPs, and Spam Purchasers.

  153. if its totally knocking down spam sites by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1

    in my eyes, even better.

    with this new found optimism i am now installing it \o/

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
  154. It's like sending AOL their CDs back!! by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Come on guys!

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:It's like sending AOL their CDs back!! by phoric · · Score: 1

      Back when AOL used to take unlimited requests for their software on floppy disks, I ordered hundreds (maybe thousands) of them, formatted them, and used them how I saw fit. :0 Free disks! But I just got 2 AOL CD's in the mail today. Doh!

  155. War is Hell by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

    I've been assualted by spam for years. If I wasn't on dial-up I would install the screen saver.

  156. Art of sense = Art of invalid whois info by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

    I'm skeptical about Art of Sense's claim to not be spam. Their given phone number on their whois info is obviously fake (1234567890). Combine that with the PO box and you may never find out who they are. They do have (what looks like) a valid number for the fax line, however.

  157. Mirror? by rockwood · · Score: 1

    Is there a mirror for this software? I couldn't access the site yesterday due to a good ./ing. and today it only says 'Stay Tuned" - I'd love to get this up and running - and information (ie: guide to the file location, direct path, mirror, etc.) would be extremely welcome.
    TIA

    --
    Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
  158. Why I think it is an awesome idea by aws910 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree. I think the screensaver is a great idea. You can say what you want about ethics and all, but the fact is that the spammers are already mounting their own DDoS attacks on anti-spam sites. Did the authorities do anything? Nope. Think about it... if a guy sucker-punches you in a dark deserted alley, would you punch back or ignore him? Spammers have clearly declared war on anti-spam sites(and the general public). I liken the DDoS of SpamCop in November 2003 to Pearl Harbor. The only difference is that after Pearl Harbor, we defended ourselves and vanquished our opponent. What was the outcome of the SpamCop DDoS? "Well, you'll just have to invest in better filtering software and pray it'll work". I'm tired of hiding from spam. We have to fight back.

    I read the reports here and there about a spammer getting jailed/fined/lynched, but my inbox still fills up. I'll bet that for each spammer that is jailed/fined/lynched, you have 5 new spammers filling the void. What is being done to stop this? Not a lot. Spamming is still a HUGE moneymaking opportunity with relatively few barriers to entry, and it is "legal"(as long as you cover your bases).

    IMO, the best thing about this tool is that it will allow the common man to "get back" at spammers. I think people have lost their patience. They don't want to wait months for the next half-baked, loophole-laden piece of legislation that the spammers in other countries will just laugh at.

    Another facet of this discussion is enforcement (at least in the US). Many sites say that it will open you up to legal trouble, which may be true by the letter of the law. But consider this - very few spam that I receive are "can-spam" compliant. This, coupled with the fact that the US is the biggest source of spam, indicates that the US Government is having trouble enforcing a law that it made specifically against spam. IANAL, but I don't think there is a federal law against DDoS'ing. I'm not saying it's OK to DDoS, I'm just saying that I think you'll be struck by lightning 3 times before you get nailed for DDoS'ing a spammer.

    And about the DoS at the user-level... If Lycos only directs a user to DoS spammers in countries outside of the users' own country, does the spammer have any recourse other than to complain to the DOS'ers ISP?

    1. Re:Why I think it is an awesome idea by gtkuhn · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a job for open source!

  159. Re:A few bits of info...and a pointless rant by BawbBitchen · · Score: 1

    No, I did not vote for Bush. However, I can understand why alot of people did. Keep an open mind about things.

  160. Not vigilantism, Progress! by mtaco · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that if a spam has an link in it (which they all do), then they are sending you that link in an attempt to get you to visit their site. It was very nice of Lycos to automate the process for me and them. Now I need not bother reading the mail in order to make all those spam companies happy...by increasing the visitations to their site. Thanks Lycos! It's not vigilantism, its just progress. As computer systems evolve, more and more tasks get done by the computer, with less intervention from the user. :-)

  161. Re:Advise use black paper with the ends taped toge by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    Advise use black paper with the ends taped together when you do this the inkt will soon run out. I only hope they have no electronic storage.
    No, not the main fax number, the main reception number. And this isn't a one-man job, so it's not about a loop of black paper. It's about every call picked up by main reception being something other than a paying customer.
  162. It must be working... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    The volume of spam arriving in my mailbox has dropped right off... :) I was getting some twenty odd landing in the trash having been filtered there... now I've gotten only two in the last day...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  163. This was a stupid idea, and it needs to die. Now. by Animats · · Score: 1
    Somebody has transmit all that crap long distances through many cables and routers before it finally hits the spammers's server. Most of the costs are incurred by innocent parties. Some of whom may sue Lycos.

    This approach to controlling spam probably has more collateral damage than anything since firewalling entire countries.

  164. MOD PARENT UP by poohsuntzu · · Score: 1

    I'm having fun just watching the page do it's job

    --
    "We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
    "Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
  165. Excellent! by qualico · · Score: 1

    Go Lycos GO!
    Attack Spammers!

    I for one will now run this screensaver dedicated 24/7

    Go Microsoft Go!
    Sue spammers!

    Die Rolex!
    Die Nigeria!
    Die Viagra!
    Die Logos
    Die Penise Enlargement!
    Die Die Die!

  166. playing the victim? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Could it be possible that the spammers brought their own stuff down in an attempt to make themselves look like the victims, and provide them with a case against people that are doing these things?

    Really, it's ironic, since these are the companies that totally shit-bomb people's servers and workstations on a daily basis. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that their wrong does not justify a wrong in like.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  167. http://www.internettrafficreport.com/7day.htm by neitzsche · · Score: 1

    Looking at that old goofy "Internet Traffic Report" (remember? - from back in the 1990s?) web site, I noticed something that seems significant.

    http://www.internettrafficreport.com/7day.htm

    There seems to have been a tremendous effect on overall web traffic recently. The 'recovery' period seems incredibly rapid however.

    Anyone know how to gauge whether this had any real effect on total spam sent on the (whole) internet? Also, anyone know difinitively what the start/stop times of the "attack" were?

    I know the spamhauses themselves were not targetted. Does this merely reflect a couple hundred thousand people smacking the root nameservers with obscure domain lookups? Or was the screensaver using explicit IP addresses?

    --
    "God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
  168. Missing a more likely possibility.... by macraig · · Score: 1

    Isn't it in fact more likely that the spammers themselves are taking down their own sites, in order to make themselves *appear* to have been victimized by the Lycos screensaver? The brownie points from the resulting legal sympathy may be worth more to them at this point than keeping the sites live for a few days.

  169. It looks like they're down. by seanyboy · · Score: 1

    It looks as if makelovenotspam has been pulled. I wonder if Lycos are getting cold feet?

    --
    Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
  170. Publicity by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

    If anything they got Lycos in the news :)

  171. Packet SPAM and Freedom of Expression by Lioner · · Score: 1

    If sending me info about stuff I don't want is Freedom of Expression so is sending a beautiful stream of packets at a site!

  172. I don't understand by stry_cat · · Score: 1

    The spammers want to get people to visit their site right? That is why they send spam. So now they're unhappy that millions are going to their site via the Lycos screensaver? I don't understand they should be happy they are getting what they wanted -- increased traffic.

    1. Re:I don't understand by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      You don't understand because you're dense. It's that simple, just like you.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

  173. Why not spam THEM with bogus filled in forms? by pg110404 · · Score: 1

    Instead of simply sending out request after request for a web page, never to be seen, what if someone wrote a screensaver that distributed lists of spam site web pages that contained forms and each screensaver would issue POSTs with bogus data? The result is not a DDoS attack but it would bury the spammers in a mountain of bogus requests for information/product etc that they'd have to sift through to get the legit ones. A computer's time is nothing.... A person's time is a huge deal. THAT would discourage the spammers a lot more effectively than this fiasco.

  174. Re:Advise use black paper with the ends taped toge by stephenbooth · · Score: 1

    Even better print up some stickers with a message like "Call now for hot dates in your area: 555-1234" or "Girls ready to take your call 24x7: 555-1234" but with their phone number. Then put the stickers on the inside of the cubicle doors of public and commercial restrooms (pub, mall, bar, gas station, church &c). Not only will the resulting calls jam up their phonelines but given the nature of the calls most of their call centre/reception staff will probably quit. I'm not sure about the US but I do now that in the UK the staff who quit will be able to sue the employer under health and safety legislation on the basis that their trading activities resulted in an unsafe workplace.

    Stephen

    --
    "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
  175. yay for mob justice, or she's a witch, burn her by hkarmark · · Score: 2

    As a concerned villager, I personally am off to grab my pitchfork and swarm the monsters castle like everyone else

  176. Because they opted in! by doublem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly. If the mortgage guys don't like the packets coming from our screensavers, why haven't they sent us any opt-out requests?

    By continuing to send SPAM, they have opted in to this program!

    The act of sending SPAM is an opt-in request for this handy, distributed, load testing system!

    Any time they want to opt out, all they have to do is stop sending SPAM, and their opt-out request will be processed within X business days!

    How very handy!

    I wonder if Lycos would be willing to sell this handy load testing system without requiring you to first send SPAM? I know I'd like to have the new firewall and load balancers stress tested before putting them into production.

    It's kind of unfair to restrict this free load testing to established bulk mailers.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  177. Worrying, indeed! by lorcha · · Score: 1
    Yes, spammers are evil scum who need a standard NATO round square in the forehead. But this sort of rough and ready justice worries me.
    You have no problem with summarily shooting people who send you unwanted email, but all of a sudden when it comes to visiting spammer websites you start to get alarmed?!

    Unbelievable! Methinks you could stand to rethink your priorities in life.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  178. How to replace the screen saver by doublem · · Score: 1

    Replacement for the screen saver: :start_here
    wget -m http://www.artofsense.com/english/
    rm -rf www.artofsense.com
    goto start_here

    Of course, I'm one of thos freaks who has Cygwin installed on his work W2K box, so the above is a Windows Batch file for people who have cygwin installed.

    www.artofsense.com is the only one still responding

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  179. Crap by doublem · · Score: 1

    Should have hit "preview" first, then I would have
    known to set the type to CODE on the post.

    :start_here
    wget -m http://www.artofsense.com/english/
    rm -rf www.artofsense.com
    goto start_here

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  180. Wow, a reason to run IE by doublem · · Score: 1

    Incredible.

    You found a site that will give me a reason to use IE, at least for that single page.

    Now, how to get this working in Mozilla / Firebird....

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Wow, a reason to run IE by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1


      You put it in your sig? Awesome. We need to get more people to do that...

    2. Re:Wow, a reason to run IE by doublem · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's a SIG that goes after one of my pet peeves, what's not to like?

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  181. Thin line by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    I'm of two minds on this. There is the obvious DDOS aspect, and DDOSes are wrong. But on the other hand, this case is different than a normal DDOS. This isn't a few people with a network of hacked machines. This is grass roots.

    Basically, what is the different between a DDOS and the internet equivelent of a picket or protest? I hate asking that question, because I didnt like it when folks did the same thing during the US election to silence the party they didn't like. But this is still the same basic idea of getting a group of people to protest in front of an unethical company's door.

    In the real world, you can protest, but you still have to let people through unharmed and you can't do actual damage to the establishment you are protesting. You are just taking up space and congesting traffic outside the place.

    It seems the difference here would be if you crash the box. And then there's the question of whether the box actually crashed or is it faked. (At least, I'd be amazed if there wasn't a /.er out there screaming that.)

  182. I want advice, not a screensaver by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1

    Can I obtain a copy of (or a reference to) that target list Lycos is using, so that I can examine it myself and decide what I should do about those targets? It's not that I think Lycos is wrong about them, but I want to get my brain involved in the process rather than merely lend Lycos my hardware and name.

    If Lycos wants me to kill someone, they should provide me with the guy's name and photo and let me do the job, not blindfold me and ask me to pull the trigger while they take care of aiming my gun for me. The same if the guy should be allowed to escape after a slight beating. If they want my assistance with any of this, I want to take part in the thinking, not just follow their instructions.

    Has Lycos released the source code for this screensaver? If not, why?

  183. "You're our boy." by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1

    Hate, now that's a strong word ... dislike strongly-with prejudice (all puns intended)

    We, "the victims", rebel by "playing into their hand".
    (These advertisers are not "a people" so we can get away with "disliking strongly-with prejudice")
    Soooo ...
    -They WANT us to visit their sites.
    -We visit their sites, ...A LOT.
    -The advertisers are HAPPY, no?

    RIGHT, off you go.

    Give them what they want and grab you a list of SPAM links, mix and match with your f(r)iends (like baseball cards),
    Cruise from here:

    http://anonymouse.is4u.de/ ... A new Geek Sport.

    On an end note remember the immortal words of Arlo Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant.

    And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
    wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
    guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
    KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
    he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
    yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
    sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

    Didn't feel too good about it.

    --
    ~hylas
  184. What's wrong with that? it's Opt-In, after all! by BattyMan · · Score: 1

    By spamming me, or one of my associates, you have opted-in to a DDoS attack.
    If, for some reason, you do _not_ wish to be DDoS'ed, you may opt-out of further DDoS attacks from me (but not my associates) by clicking here.

    --
    Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.