Lycos leads the fight against Spam!

You can get the screensaver here

BBC story here.

Woo hoo. This is cool!

I’m all for reducing and stopping spam, but this seems to me like a Denial of Service (DOS) type of attack. After all the Lycos screen saver is using up their bandwidth by sending a deluge of irrelevant http requests to known spam web sites.

Just an observation.

…and yes, Lycos’ software and servers are regulating how much traffic is going to each spammer web site so it won’t go down, but it still looks to me like the same tactic.

The link to download the screensaver isn’t working now. It appears to have been hacked. Oh lookie! A moral lesson from a hacker who supports spammers!

I think the screensaver server might be overloaded by requests for downloads. It took me several attempts before I managed to get hold of it.

How does dopekind feel about the moral objections presented by Dragwyr? I can see the point having some validity. That said, I enjoy watching my spam-o-smacker screensaver at work.

I don’t think the following message is caused by an overloaded server:

Wow. That is really freaky. I just downloaded the screensaver again without problem. I chose the UK option. Could that have made a difference? Reporting a user for downloading software from a reputable company sounds like scare tactics, but what do I know? :eek:

I haven’t really explained myself well.

When I click on the link all I get is a plain text page with the heading “using bots to attack people is just wrong”, and the entire content of the page is what I quoted above “Yes, attacking spammers is wrong, you know this, you shouldn’t be doing it. Your ip address and request have been logged and will be reported to your ISP for further action.”

There’s absolutely no content, no options, nothing but a plain white page with the above text in 10 point default font. Even CTRL-F5 just brings up the same page. I get the same results whether I use IE or Firefox. I tried removing the /intl/ bit from the address but once again I get the same result.

I would love to know how my ISP would react to a report that I tried to access a website that hosts a program that can be used for a DOS against spammers. If they expressly forbid running such software or using their network to commit a DOS, they might have a case for suspending my membership, but simply trying to access a webpage about such a program? I don’t see how they could justify it.

Can anyone help us out here? I get a proper web page when I click on the link. I do not understand how we can get different results. More data would be useful. It might make a GQ question!

Bet you cazzle has some spyware that’s causing an objection triggered by the URL. And of course, who makes spyware? The same people who spam.

I’ve downloaded the PC and Mac versions, and they’re running whenever I’m not at my desk. Take that, losers!

Spybot S&D reports four cookies.

Ad Aware gave my system a clean bill of health two days ago. I’ll run it again in a minute but as I’ve had zero spyware problems since switching to Firefox at the start of the year, I’ll be surprised if it finds something.

Very bizarre.

I got mine from

The original host, I believe.
Yeah it’s Swedish, but you can probably figure out the download

Ok, Ad Aware found 5 cookies. That seems to be a clean bill of health for my machine.

I tried to find an anonymous surfing site to access it through, but no luck. I resorted to using Google’s language tools and told it to translate the URL from German to English (I just picked a random language), and sure enough, the real page finally came up. Since there were no German words on it, it was all still in English. I selected Other English from the drop down box, pressed Submit… and got a pop up window with the same old drivel about attacking spammers being wrong. The main window was then redirected to

From a command prompt, I pinged and it resolved to I ran a tracert from, and it terminated at the destination, which it listed as a Swedish site. I ran another tracert, this time from using an Australian server but not my ISP, and it got to the 14th hop ( before it timed out. I got the same result from a different Australian server and from a French one. resolves as a Swedish address.

Finally, I attempted to access the site from my husband’s computer, and got the same “hacked” message.

oh. you have probably gone beyond my expertise in internet stuff now cazzle. Could you frame a GQ question and find out what is going on? Does beagledave’s link help?

Beagledave’s link does the same thing. I wonder if my ISP has blocked it? Seems unlikely that they would do so with such a shoddy and uninformative page. I am now trying to see if there’s anyone else out there having the same problem.

There are some bits of spyware that don’t get sniffed by AdAware or Spybot. I had a virus that was causing this sort of behaviour before I installed AVG. But maybe it’s the Australian government’s super-secret firewall…?

As soon as I get home, I’m dowloading it.

There’s no such thing, and I’m not allowed to talk about it.

The virus theory isn’t bad, but it means that my husband’s computer would have to be infected to, and I find it hard to believe that Norton would have failed us both, especially as we visit few of the same sites.

I found a poster on an Australian Broadband discussion site who has the same problem that I’ve been having, but he’s with a different ISP.

As far as really nasty spyware something called “Virtual Bouncer” is really vicious. Has anyone encountered this nasty piece of crapware? I have and your computer turns into “Popup City”.

As far as using a DNS attack on a Spammer? Well they can dish it out but they can’t take it huh? What’s that old expression - the pot calling the kettle black? Those folks fill up our computers with Spam and Crapware yet they are the first to go screaming when something is done against them. :mad:
If the Spammers can find a legal reason to stop DNS anti-Spam attacks on them, this would show the legal system is a tremendous failure. (They can bombard the Hell out of us yet we can’t fight back? :mad: If there is no legal way for them to stop it, I have no moral reservations out of spamming the Hell out of them.

Something less than happy,

The difference is that each individual user/server is choosing to request the data. In a DDS the user/servers are unwittingly enlisted to make the data request. Someone initiating a DDS is unfairly and improperly enlisting resources which they do not own to magnify their own data. This is more like a /. kind of deal.

Cazzle, I’m getting the same thing when it resolves the page at all. I’m on a heavily-firewalled and filtered machine. So there’s another data point for you.