<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-GB"><title>Comments on Lycos Spam Screensaver Doomed To Fail - AddedBytes.com</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.addedbytes.com/article/lycos-spam-screensaver-doomed-to-fail/" /><link rel="self" type="application/xml" href="http://www.addedbytes.com/article/lycos-spam-screensaver-doomed-to-fail/comments/atom/" /><subtitle>Latest comments on Lycos Spam Screensaver Doomed To Fail on AddedBytes.com</subtitle><author><name>Dave Child</name></author><updated>2004-11-30T15:37:49Z</updated><id>tag:addedbytes.com,2004:202</id><!-- ckey="76C662BB" --><entry><title>Comment on Lycos Spam Screensaver Doomed To Fail</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.addedbytes.com/article/lycos-spam-screensaver-doomed-to-fail/comments/" /><summary type="text">Comment by Dave Child ( &lt;a href="http://www.addedbytes.com"&gt;http://www.addedbytes.com&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. However, I have spent a lot of time reading proposals for fighting spam, and this idea is hardly a new one. Problems with the system are obvious and serious. The main one being that the people it is supposed to cause a problem for (spammers) will remain unaffected by it. Their customers and clients may be affected, but it is unlikely to be in any serious way.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to do your part to reduce spam, get yourself a decent Bayesian spam filter. More people effectively filtering spam means more spam needs to be sent for the same result - making it more expensive. That's the only way I've seen so far that logically should reduce spam.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The rest, like this, are publicity stunts or risk causing harm to the wrong people.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Worst of all, Lycos has brought down at least two websites so far. The technique they've used to do it is illegal in many countries.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Whether I like to see the downsides in things or not, I remain of the opinion that something that breaks laws in several countries and cannot do what it sets out to is doomed to fail.</summary><id>tag:addedbytes.com,2004:262</id><published>2004-12-10T15:36:11+00:00</published><updated>2004-12-10T15:36:11Z</updated></entry><entry><title>Comment on Lycos Spam Screensaver Doomed To Fail</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.addedbytes.com/article/lycos-spam-screensaver-doomed-to-fail/comments/" /><summary type="text">Comment by GuTTeRPuNk ( &lt;a href=""&gt;&lt;/a&gt; )&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You see this thing all wrong. This *will* effectively cost these spammers money. And even though companies may hire people to send it for them, why would this make any difference? The target site is that of the company. I'm glad companies like lycos provide a way of attacking spammers, and to find out wether it works or not, all you have to do is use it. &lt;br /&gt;I'm not happy with the spam I get in my mailbox everyday, and spammers deserve to have their faces rearranged.&lt;br /&gt;But I honestly believe this might work just as good, if they could only convince enough people to use it.&lt;br /&gt;Your concerns about employees adding an URL of their choosing to the blacklist are completely ridiculous. Same thing with you sending out thousands of emails including a URL of your choosing. That wouldn't even get you blacklisted. And I do think people check these URLs first to make sure that it concerns spam.&lt;br /&gt;I guess you're one of these guys that can see a downside in everything.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers!</summary><id>tag:addedbytes.com,2004:261</id><published>2004-12-10T11:41:44+00:00</published><updated>2004-12-10T11:41:44Z</updated></entry></feed>