Lycos Pulls Vigilante Anti-spam Campaign 328
davidwr writes "Eweek reports that Lycos is scrapping it's anti-spam campaign: 'On Friday, Lycos Europe gave up the ghost, posting a 'Stay Tuned' note on the MakeLoveNotSpam.com Web site it was using to distribute the screensaver. The Lycos Europe home page, which heavily promoted the screensaver all week, was also scrubbed clean of any references to the screensaver.' See previous Slashdot coverage from Nov. 26, Dec. 1, and Dec. 2."
How long until someone makes a clone of this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly there is at least some interest in fighting spam with DDOS even though it's not the best solution.
Personally a bit of a shame (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps the problem here is that with Lycos being the single point of failure, as well as being a customer facing organisation, its position was just untenable.
There has certainly been lots of talk about building in such a system to mail clients, and perhaps having a distributed spam-attack system that way - perhaps this will be legally more tenable (they actually emailed you personally) as well as more resilient to pressure.
Re:Good, it was stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
For more: BitTorrent takes a hit from DDoS attacks [techspot.com]
It wouldn't be a surprise if the spammers re-directed their sites to the trackers, as both Suprnova and Lokitorrent had torrents for the screensaver. At the current time, it is still unknown who was behind it.
Re:Personally a bit of a shame (Score:4, Interesting)
look, when the system was so stupidly built that the spammers could just add a refresh tag to forward the flood to wherever they wanted, it had no chance of really slowing the spam down at all.
kneejerk reaction tactics, with bad execution, that was only supposed to make lycos look like it was doing something for the problem in the eyes of normal folk who don't understand enough to see that it was a fucking stupid idea to do in the first place(especially stupid wheny you were a big company and actually could end up accountable for all the fucking around you do).
Re:Good, it was stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it very sad that they don't have the balls to go through with it.
Finally someone stands up and fights a worthy cause only to stop after one week.
I have but one word for this behavior: cowardism
Will someone please pick up the towel out of the ring??
Re:Good, it was stupid (Score:1, Interesting)
Existing installations? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about an email program that does this (Score:5, Interesting)
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 don't want to identify myself to any spammer or show that my email is live.
On the other hand, I would want the spam site to know that using my email address will only bring it grief. As a side bonus, it might even bankrupt the site when it has to pay its spammer affiliates for all the automated clickthroughs. If a greater percentage of people clickthrough via automated means (but don't buy), it harms both the spam-marketed site (in bandwidth and affiliate charges) and it hurts the spammer when sites reduce their clickthough payment rates. I can only hope that this will cause spammer-using sites to crack down on spammers that are too aggressive.
Maybe someone else can pick up the ball. (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead if a lose group of spam haters worked together to develop open source version of the "Make Love Not Spam" screensaver or something similar, you would end up with a much more formidable foe to spamming. The OSS version would need handle redirects (and not follow them) and would need to have a decentralized mechanism for distributing target information. If Lycos can put together 100,000 volunteers in a week or two, then it's not far fetched to see another similar open source project pulling similar numbers. Especially if it were available for both Windows and *NIX.
MPAA already heading that way... (Score:4, Interesting)
While Lycos was on unsteady legal footing in terms of their targets (i.e. it's often tough to connect a web site to the spam sender) the MPAA and RIAA can easily prove that a particular user or BitTorrent link site is sharing/hosting/providing copyrighted material. It may be just a matter of time before earlier efforts to legalize RIAA and MPAA DDOS attacks [com.com] are resurrected.
Re:How long until someone makes a clone of this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine a pretty screensaver a-la-SETI, but showing number of flood packets being sent...
Gaze into the crystal ball... (Score:5, Interesting)
Next, the spammers will start converting all the zombie PCs they now use for distributed email attacks into web servers that provide their advertisers a distributed source of order-taking. This means that unsuspecting PC owners everywhere will soon rack up astounding bandwidth overruns as URLs that point to their PC get entered into the SBS program.
Nevertheless, an SBS does strike directly at the spammers, raising the hoop a bit higher and perhaps winnowing out the less 'professional' among them.
The only sure cure for spam, of course, is to take the battle one step further, by consuming all the resources of the advertisers directly - call their phones, request literature, place fraudlent orders with non-existant CC numbers (that, of course, pass Luhn MOD 10 checking) and provide contact phone numbers that ring forever. This will swamp them with orders that tie up their sales staff, cost them money and ultimately starve them.
The only problem with "the final solution" for spam is that it takes individual effort on a daily concerted basis. So spam endures by riding on the backs of those so clueless that they actually order products from spammers and those of us too lazy to do anything about it.
Ain't humanity grand?
Did you track the results? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's odd that attacking websites seemed to have dropped the amount of spam. Makes me wonder just how close the spam servers are to the spam website servers. Maybe the innocent victems we are so worried about are really the spammers.
Come on all you people - this was a probe - yack about good or evil and POST YOUR RESULTS!
What did this really do. I can't be the only one who tracks spam. Admins, what do you say?
The mob has tasted blood and wants more... (Score:5, Interesting)
It hardly seems important whether the notion of DOS-styled retribution is appropriate or even legal - no such moral or legal considerations have managed to control people's decision to download mp3's and movies for free.
This is history in the making, and as I see it, the real story is this; we have been victims with no means of defending ourselves, while our frustration and anger grow without end. Suddenly a revolutionary appears on the scene and give us hope, showing us how we can fight back.
It's no longer an issue of whether or not we will, or should fight back - the mob has tasted blood and will have more. As far as I'm concerned, it falls to forums like this one to "think-tank" relatively responsible solutions, and I've heard some good ideas here in the last week.
We all know someone is sitting in their basement right now, pulling an all-nighter, writing the next tool of mass-retribution, fueled by strong coffee and an even stronger hatred of spam. I suggest that if cooler heads are to prevail in any manner, it will be by creating a less-malicious tool of retribution, one which attempts to focus the attacks on legitimate "military targets" by requiring manual human selection of the targets, not by letting some distributed software select the targets automatically. Better hurry, the latter approach is probably more tempting to programmers who have succumbed to the blood-lust...
Re:Good, it was stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Lycos was close but not quite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of attacking the site, the screensaver instead should have merely hit each URL in the email body once, just as the users EMail client would do. It should then take the most prevelant URL to the website in the spam (prevelant meaning the one appearing most) and fetch the page and again fetch each image (etc) url on that page, just as what would happen if the user had clicked on the link in the email.
Why do this? Well, for one, it will make the spammer a very very lot of money very quickly. But two, it will cost the spammers customer a huge amount of money without any sales. The cost of doing business this way would be too high (assuming enough screensavers to do this). and spammers would either have to shift their model or pick another industry.
It was a good PR campaign (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a win-win. They exploited the anti-spam fervor and got attention which might translate into profits, loans, etc.
Is Lycos Responsible? (Score:3, Interesting)
They didn't use it themselves.
They fully disclosed to users the functions of this screen saver.
The users intentionally downloaded it, agreed to the terms, and knowingly ran it.
I'd think blaming Lycos is legally dubious, at best.
Re:inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes it does. That's virtually the only way to take out wild fires. You burn away the fuel, and the fire dies.
Trying to put out a wild fire with water is like using your piss to fight your house fire. Not very effective.
The analogy works. Spammers will cease to exist if they cannot be profitable. If ISPs take down spam sites *fast*, then no problem. But if they don't give a damn, then they should be DDoS'd. Either they remove the cancer, or we remove it for them as it affects all of us.
Vigilantism is sometimes good. (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens when the law won't protect you? Sure, you possibly endure the crime being committed and lobby for laws. Or you go vigilante on them.
What happens when you're on the Internet with hundreds of different governments? You can't lobby them all and when you get laws in one country, they just move their operations to another.
You're essentially shit out of luck here, and vigilantism/mob justice is in order. You don't have to like it, but don't stop us.
Re:inevitable (Score:1, Interesting)
Cox who blocked the link to Lycos, had instituted bandwidth reductions on my uplink to deny zombies the ability to email out a lot of spam, so now it takes about 30 seconds to send an email. I use to use SPAMcop but now its too slow. Cox also put a spam filter on my email. Great however its false positives are high and nearly cost me a $300,000 real estate deal. So now I have all of these restrictions on me, I pay for the connection, and I still get all the spam and have to wade throught everything myself.
Yea, you bet, fight fire with fire, I want some SPAMMER blood. Maybe this was not a perfect response, but lets keep trying. If the spammers can steal 70% of the email bandwidth that I pay for, then let me use some of my broadband bandwidth to pay them back. We all have been tollerating this for years, quitely, trying to do the right thing, only to be taken advantage of by everyone - the spammers, the ISP, the large pipe companies, everyone.
ENOUGH, I want to firebomb the ba$tard$! I want a Dirty Harry response! I want a Sherman's March to the Sea, leaving nothing to the spammers. What is wrong with breaking into the home of a thief who has ripped you off daily for the last few years?
One company, Lycos who has the gall to try to respond in kind, and the entire world goes frenchie on us. We can not anger the spammers, they might do something! Well, I want to bring the hammer down, a 50 ton pile driver. I want to blow them off the planet!
Re:inevitable - for sure (Score:3, Interesting)
fighting fire with fire doesn't always work
Actually Lycos is BRILLIANT. Just a year ago I would have agreed with you but careless Internet computing (primarily unsecured(able) Windows machines) and commercial spamers are ruining the experience for all.
Maybe it is time to fight back. I have no problem in running a program where if I click on a spam button, the senders IP gets 1-5% of my bandwidth for a day. This would raise their costs and throttle their output. Perhaps the upstream ISP would take note and cut them off like they should have done along time ago.
I also find it amusing that some network providors would cut off this site yet let spammers go wild. Using a method like this hurts them for their irresponsible and inconsiderate trespasses into our mail boxes.
What are the authorities going to do if 5% of the worlds PC users slam a spammer? Naybe that is a good name for this service, "spammerslammer".
OK programmers, give us an open source "Spammer Slammer"!!!
A program and system I hope for (Score:3, Interesting)
Would "suck" bandwidth from:
a) spamvertised sites I find in my e-mailbox; or
b) spamvertised sites other people I trust received in their e-mail box'es.
On a)
So I would pick from my e-mails web-sites I want to go down and feed the to the program. It is absolutely LEGAL. They SPAMED me, They PROVIDED their website, and they WILL PAY for extra bandwidth. I am free to post on the web these websites as BAD, NEVER-TO-GO-TO&SUCK-BANDWIDTH-FROM WEB-SITES.
On b)
I trust a few spam-busting sites, and I would be happy if some of those people *would publish addresses of spamvertised sites they received*. (Once again - perfectly legal). This could be published in RSS to which I would link from my program.
Final Result: many people would be getting addresses automatically from spam-busting sites via RSS every 4-6 hours. Those on spam-busting sites would update their RSS as soon as they see spamvertised sites going down, so resources of "bandwith-suckers" would not be wasted
This would hurt those who pay spammers and affect economy spam is based on.
For those who argue, that spammers would fight back and become more mean/ would apply illegal tactics: This is GOOD. The more illegal things they will do, the more likely they are going to be busted by law enforcement.
I quess eferything is legal in my proposal: everybody is free to publish spamvertised web-sites he/she received and everybody is free to "suck" bandwidth from web-sites.
P.S. Of course program should pick only IP's from RSS, sucking should be made in non-rerotable manner and so on, but this is just technical details programmers would take into account.
Re:Good, it was stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
So, *you* not getting it makes *me* clueless? :-)
Hint: rhetorical question (I know long words are probably hard for you, I suggest you look 'rhetorical' up.)
Re:Microsoft the real culprit (Score:2, Interesting)
Your confusing desktop architecture somehow with
SMTP and network topologgy along with most of the other aspects of modern computing and laying it at MSFT's doorstep.
I don't care for MSFT but you need to go read some
of the 'DUMMY' series of books. Start with
'Knowledge for Dummies' and work up from there.
Then drop msft and windows. Go to Linux. You will still get spammed. If the whole world stopped using Windows it still wouldn't matter. There will be spammers until they are slowly bleed out.
MSFT didn't create SMTP or any other email protocol ASAIK.
They did do many other things very very poorly. Like put out a sicko product like XP. You don't have to use it.