Anti SPAM screensaver. DDOS or not?

**CingularDuality** · 12-03-2004, 01:26 PM

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/showthread.php?t=20819

Lycos Europe has published a screensaver, MakeLoveNotSPAM that responds to confirmed spammers while your computer is idle. It's designed to not be destructive, when the spam server starts responding slowly, the screensaver will switch to a different confirmed spam server. The idea is to use up the spammers bandwidth. The problem is that some internet backbone providers have evidently blocked the MakeLoveNotSpam servers so nobody can use this service... This is disturbing to me for a couple of different reasons:
1. The idea that a service provider (whether it's a backbone or a local ISP) is going to pick and choose which parts of the internet you have access to really rubs me the wrong way. I know that there are "family friendly" ISPs that specifically market their censorship, but most service providers do not. This is wrong, IMO.
2. The fact that it appears that the backbone providers enjoy the money that spammers pay more than the happiness of their other customers. Why else would they block access to an anti-spam tool, but not attempt to block the spammers themselves?

As for the attempt to label this as a DDOS, that's absurd. The program doesn't work that way. The goal is to gobble bandwidth, not crash servers...

**DudeMan** · 12-03-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/showthread.php?t=20819

Lycos Europe has published a screensaver, MakeLoveNotSPAM that responds to confirmed spammers while your computer is idle. It's designed to not be destructive, when the spam server starts responding slowly, the screensaver will switch to a different confirmed spam server. The idea is to use up the spammers bandwidth. The problem is that some internet backbone providers have evidently blocked the MakeLoveNotSpam servers so nobody can use this service... This is disturbing to me for a couple of different reasons:
1. The idea that a service provider (whether it's a backbone or a local ISP) is going to pick and choose which parts of the internet you have access to really rubs me the wrong way. I know that there are "family friendly" ISPs that specifically market their censorship, but most service providers do not. This is wrong, IMO.
2. The fact that it appears that the backbone providers enjoy the money that spammers pay more than the happiness of their other customers. Why else would they block access to an anti-spam tool, but not attempt to block the spammers themselves?

As for the attempt to label this as a DDOS, that's absurd. The program doesn't work that way. The goal is to gobble bandwidth, not crash servers...

the problem with trying to sap spammers web space and bandwidth is this cing, unknown numbers but i am guessing thousands or millions, of offices and regular people are having thier computer used as a "BOT NET" its hard to fond out if you are but it effectivly limits your own personal bandwidth and then uses the rest for its spamming needs, by using this it will not solve anything. its worth a try but i dont think,itll do much.

**RandomGuy** · 12-03-2004, 01:41 PM

I find it obvious that this program is an attack mechanism. It's perhaps not as vicious as modern DDoS attacks but DDoS is a broad term and this attack network definiately fits the definition[wikipedia].

Frankly I don't think too highly of this program/screensaver. It's an all-around bad idea.

**Pokerface** · 12-03-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I find it obvious that this program is an attack mechanism. It's perhaps not as vicious as modern DDoS attacks but DDoS is a broad term and this attack network definiately fits the definition[wikipedia].

Frankly I don't think too highly of this program/screensaver. It's an all-around bad idea.

I mostly agree. If I made one of these for my own vindication against spammers, then I'd be all for it. Creating one for public consumption just makes you part of an opt-in DDOS.

**CingularDuality** · 12-04-2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I find it obvious that this program is an attack mechanism. It's perhaps not as vicious as modern DDoS attacks but DDoS is a broad term and this attack network definiately fits the definition[wikipedia].

Frankly I don't think too highly of this program/screensaver. It's an all-around bad idea.

It does NOT fit that definition. It's not an attempt to deny services. The screensaver specifically moniters the responses from the servers that they are burdening and when they get slow, the requests are throttled back.

I have mixed feelings about this program, but I'm very upset at the actions that some ISPs and backbone providers have taken. They're charging money for bandwidth, so why do they care if confirmed spammers are being targetted? Y'know why? Because spammers are a large chunk of their market... They're protecting spam.

**CingularDuality** · 12-04-2004, 02:28 PM

Lycos is pulling the plug for now...

Emanon · 12-04-2004, 03:43 PM

I just find it funny how they block this screen saver when it only effects those who spam out stuff. Also the fact that they wont block the spammers themselves, Then to top it off the companies create "anti spam filters" for their own email acounts but this only blocks those emails from whom they dont want to spam their clients.

Very clever, block the spam from other companies and the one with the highest bid gets their spam to snake through the "spam filters".

Money makes the world go round!

**TheFeniX** · 12-05-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

The idea is to use up the spammers bandwidth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

It does NOT fit that definition. It's not an attempt to deny services.

These two statements contradict each other. Using up bandwidth of spammers can affect other legitimate users. Most spamming companies use third-party e-mail hosting anyways. In effect, you're slowing down all traffic in order to piss off a few bad eggs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanon

Money makes the world go round!

As it has done and will continue to do until we either die-out or go communist.

**CingularDuality** · 12-05-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

These two statements contradict each other. Using up bandwidth of spammers can affect other legitimate users. Most spamming companies use third-party e-mail hosting anyways. In effect, you're slowing down all traffic in order to piss off a few bad eggs.

They do not contradict. If you're running a buffet that serves pepperoni pizza and I organize a bunch of people to constantly grab slices of pizza, but to always leave one pizza untouched (so that there is always pizza available for people not in my group), then how have I denied anybody else anything?

The screensaver stops when the servers start to slow. No service is denied to anybody.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but it's definitely not a denial of service.

12-03-2004, 01:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,140	Anti SPAM screensaver. DDOS or not? http://www.tacticalgamer.com/showthread.php?t=20819 Lycos Europe has published a screensaver, MakeLoveNotSPAM that responds to confirmed spammers while your computer is idle. It's designed to not be destructive, when the spam server starts responding slowly, the screensaver will switch to a different confirmed spam server. The idea is to use up the spammers bandwidth. The problem is that some internet backbone providers have evidently blocked the MakeLoveNotSpam servers so nobody can use this service... This is disturbing to me for a couple of different reasons: 1. The idea that a service provider (whether it's a backbone or a local ISP) is going to pick and choose which parts of the internet you have access to really rubs me the wrong way. I know that there are "family friendly" ISPs that specifically market their censorship, but most service providers do not. This is wrong, IMO. 2. The fact that it appears that the backbone providers enjoy the money that spammers pay more than the happiness of their other customers. Why else would they block access to an anti-spam tool, but not attempt to block the spammers themselves? As for the attempt to label this as a DDOS, that's absurd. The program doesn't work that way. The goal is to gobble bandwidth, not crash servers... __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

12-03-2004, 01:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
RandomGuy Join Date: May 2003 Location: K-W, Ont. Age: 27 Posts: 1,742	Re: Anti SPAM screensaver. DDOS or not? I find it obvious that this program is an attack mechanism. It's perhaps not as vicious as modern DDoS attacks but DDoS is a broad term and this attack network definiately fits the definition[wikipedia]. Frankly I don't think too highly of this program/screensaver. It's an all-around bad idea.

12-04-2004, 02:28 PM	#6 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,140	Re: Anti SPAM screensaver. DDOS or not? Lycos is pulling the plug for now... __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

12-04-2004, 03:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
Emanon Banned Join Date: May 2003 Age: 25 Posts: 1,249	Re: Anti SPAM screensaver. DDOS or not? I just find it funny how they block this screen saver when it only effects those who spam out stuff. Also the fact that they wont block the spammers themselves, Then to top it off the companies create "anti spam filters" for their own email acounts but this only blocks those emails from whom they dont want to spam their clients. Very clever, block the spam from other companies and the one with the highest bid gets their spam to snake through the "spam filters". Money makes the world go round!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links