The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What do people think of this?
[URL]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/lycos_europe_spam_blitz/[/URL]
I'm not convinced about the legality of it, but I've downloaded it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work from behind the Uni's firewall. Damn.
[URL]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/lycos_europe_spam_blitz/[/URL]
I'm not convinced about the legality of it, but I've downloaded it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work from behind the Uni's firewall. Damn.
Page:
What do people think of this?
[URL]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/lycos_europe_spam_blitz/[/URL]
I'm not convinced about the legality of it, but I've downloaded it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work from behind the Uni's firewall. Damn.
[URL]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/lycos_europe_spam_blitz/[/URL]
I'm not convinced about the legality of it, but I've downloaded it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work from behind the Uni's firewall. Damn.
Good idea, just most spam is sent from home PCs without people knowing it...
There's a site that does something like this every month, but they target scam sites and stuff. I've lost it though...
There's a site that does something like this every month, but they target scam sites and stuff. I've lost it though...
If it helps against spam, i like it
I'm against spam, but surely setting up a distributed denial of service attack is not the correct way to go about things?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> I'm against spam, but surely setting up a distributed denial of
> service attack is not the correct way to go about things?
Well its not DDoS is it, as thats illegal.
> I'm against spam, but surely setting up a distributed denial of
> service attack is not the correct way to go about things?
Well its not DDoS is it, as thats illegal.
I wouldnt care if it was illegal its against spam
Its just a scam in itself, really.
I would much rather use a spam stopping tool made by someone who wasnt trying to profit out of it. Every news site has a story about it and Lycos's hits will be increased this month due to the coverage, until google brings something new out next month.
Cycle of money making, clever really. But like I said, someone who tried to stop spam because they really wanted to would be different, and I would support them.
DoS attacks are not nice, and this is pratically what Lycos is promoting/doing.
DoS attacks are getting old anyway and are not favoured in hacking communities.
Dont bother using this program, people just generally have there spam blocked out by filters now and the problem should die out.
I would much rather use a spam stopping tool made by someone who wasnt trying to profit out of it. Every news site has a story about it and Lycos's hits will be increased this month due to the coverage, until google brings something new out next month.
Cycle of money making, clever really. But like I said, someone who tried to stop spam because they really wanted to would be different, and I would support them.
DoS attacks are not nice, and this is pratically what Lycos is promoting/doing.
DoS attacks are getting old anyway and are not favoured in hacking communities.
Dont bother using this program, people just generally have there spam blocked out by filters now and the problem should die out.
Garin wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> I'm against spam, but surely setting up a distributed denial of
> service attack is not the correct way to go about things?
>
> Well its not DDoS is it, as thats illegal.
Did you read the article?
"The servers targeted by the screensaver have been manually selected from various sources, including Spamcop, and verified to be spam advertising sites, Lycos claims. Several tests are performed to make sure that no server stops working. Flooding a server with requests so that the server is unable to respond to the volume of requests made - a process known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack - is considered to be illegal."
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> I'm against spam, but surely setting up a distributed denial of
> service attack is not the correct way to go about things?
>
> Well its not DDoS is it, as thats illegal.
Did you read the article?
"The servers targeted by the screensaver have been manually selected from various sources, including Spamcop, and verified to be spam advertising sites, Lycos claims. Several tests are performed to make sure that no server stops working. Flooding a server with requests so that the server is unable to respond to the volume of requests made - a process known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack - is considered to be illegal."
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Did you read the article?
>
Yes, reread the quote you've posted.
"Several tests are performed to make sure that no server stops working." - In other words, they aren't flooding the server with requests so that it is unable to respond, or to put it another way, they aren't carrying out a DDoS.
Lycos is a US company, DDoS attacks are a federal offense there. I doubt very much they'd break the law in such a blatant manner.
> Did you read the article?
>
Yes, reread the quote you've posted.
"Several tests are performed to make sure that no server stops working." - In other words, they aren't flooding the server with requests so that it is unable to respond, or to put it another way, they aren't carrying out a DDoS.
Lycos is a US company, DDoS attacks are a federal offense there. I doubt very much they'd break the law in such a blatant manner.
Garin wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Did you read the article?
>
>
> Yes, reread the quote you've posted.
> "Several tests are performed to make sure that no server
> stops working." - In other words, they aren't flooding the
> server with requests so that it is unable to respond, or to put it
> another way, they aren't carrying out a DDoS.
> Lycos is a US company, DDoS attacks are a federal offense there. I
> doubt very much they'd break the law in such a blatant manner.
Ahhhhh, missed that.
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Did you read the article?
>
>
> Yes, reread the quote you've posted.
> "Several tests are performed to make sure that no server
> stops working." - In other words, they aren't flooding the
> server with requests so that it is unable to respond, or to put it
> another way, they aren't carrying out a DDoS.
> Lycos is a US company, DDoS attacks are a federal offense there. I
> doubt very much they'd break the law in such a blatant manner.
Ahhhhh, missed that.
Page: