I get the same message as cazzle. Perhaps it’s some kind of Australasian thing. But even if our enigmatic hax0r reports to our ISPs, I seriously doubt anything will come of it. All we’re doing is visiting the site, and it’s linked directly from the BBC story. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone who finds the story interesting to visit the site out of curiosity, even if they have no intention of downloading the software.
OK, I did intend to download the software. But they can’t prove anything! Well, I suppose they can now that I’ve incriminated myself on this message board…
I can’t see how an ISP could or would react if you browsed the site or downloaded the program - it’s only really their business if you activate the program and it’s against their Terms of Service or something.
I really don’t think lycos are going for a DoS style attack here, rather, just through requests for information from the websites in question they’re trying to force the companies that pay the spammers to cough up more cash for hosting. This, I have absolutely no problem with, and can’t for the life of my think why an ISP would complain about a maximum of 3-4MB/day.
I got a bit distracted, as it was not my intention to download the program at the moment anyway, I just wanted to look at the site, read what they had to say. What I’m concerned about is that this program could turn a Joe Job into even more of a problem for an unwitting victim. Lycos may take every effort to distinguish between spammers and innocent bystanders, but there’s still a good chance that an innocent party will be hit with a crippled website and a massive internet bill because they got on the bad side of a spammer.
I think it’s a very cool idea, but I’m reluctant to use these sorts of tactics against spammers. It seems awfully close to crossing the line between good (us) and bad (them).
Less chance of a Joe Job, because the screensaver targets the website actually selling the crap, not the spammer. I guess you could spam FOR your competition’s website, though.
My guess is that an Australian spammer/hacker/baddie/inside man has hacked a Domain Name Server somewhere down under. Anyone asking for that URL from a hacked DNS will get redirected to the wrong dotted quad, where the naughty-naughty page is hosted instead of the real deal. Try 83.241.136.30 and see if you get any results.
Australian checking in (near Sydney)
I can access the webpage to download the screensaver from the link provided in FinnAgain’s OP in the Pit.
I have not tried to download the screensaver, though.
Oh well. The spammers don’t mess about when they want to hit a web site. I notice also that my screensaver says it can’t connect to the Lycos servers. I guess the Lycos boys and girls underestimated what they (we?) were up against.
i got a chance to download the screensaver on my comp at work last night, but this morning i can’t get through. :mad: i hope lycos gets it up and running again soon. DEATH TO SPAMMERS! is it wrong to wish death to someone in MPSIMS??
I wonder why spammers don’t just get a frelling clue…
“hmm, a vast majority of savvy net-surfers are downloading an app to burn up our bandwidth, it’s obvious they hate us and we’re pissing them off, pissing off potential customers is a horrible business strategy, maybe we shouldn’t be spamming then”
it’s obvious spammers are loathed, why don’t they get a clue and stop pissing everyone off, the only idiots that would buy stuff from spam would most likely buy anything put in front of them…
“look, Mr. Idiot, it’s the new, improved Dehydrated Water!, yours for a low, low price of $19.95 per packet, act now and we’ll throw in shipping at almost no extra added cost” (product not included, additional shipping charges may apply, member FDIC, use estimates for comparison only)
From what I’ve read of this thing it uses a computer’s “idle processing power” to do whatever it does. So… will it have a bad effect on my PC’s running the United Devices anti-cancer software? You know the programs I mean.
If it won’t, then by cracky I’ll run it. But if I have to choose between cancer and spam I’ll have to go with cancer.
(THERE’s a sentence that won’t make any sense to time-travellers from 1978)
It just seems to freeze up.