Overflow spam owner's websites easily - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Tech Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+----- Thread: Overflow spam owner's websites easily (/showthread.php?tid=35086)
Overflow spam owner's websites easily by KeyStorm on 12-01-2004 at 02:41 PM
I encourage all Europeans to join this action.
quote:
Screensaver tackles spam websites
Spam subject lines in e-mail inbox, BBC
Sites selling spam goods and services are being targeted
Net users are getting the chance to fight back against spam websites
Internet portal Lycos has made a screensaver that endlessly requests data from sites that sell the goods and services mentioned in spam e-mail.
Lycos hopes it will make the monthly bandwidth bills of spammers soar by keeping their servers running flat out.
The net firm estimates that if enough people sign up and download the tool, spammers could end up paying to send out terabytes of data.
Cost curve
"We've never really solved the big problem of spam which is that its so damn cheap and easy to do," said Malte Pollmann, spokesman for Lycos Europe.
"In the past we have built up the spam filtering systems for our users," he said, "but now we are going to go one step further."
Before now users have never had the chance to be a bit more offensive
Malte Pollmann, Lycos
"We've found a way to make it much higher cost for spammers by putting a load on their servers."
By getting thousands of people to download and use the screensaver, Lycos hopes to get spamming websites constantly running at almost full capacity.
Mr Pollmann said there was no intention to stop the spam websites working by subjecting them with too much data to cope with.
He said the screensaver had been carefully written to ensure that the amount of traffic it generated from each user did not overload the web.
"Every single user will contribute three to four megabytes per day," he said, "about one MP3 file."
But, he said, if enough people sign up spamming websites could be force to pay for gigabytes of traffic every single day.
Lycos did not want to use e-mail to fight back, said Mr Pollmann.
"That would be fighting one bad thing with another bad thing," he said.
Slow down
The sites being targeted are those mentioned in spam e-mail messages and which sell the goods and services on offer.
Typically these sites are different to those that used to send out spam e-mail and they typically only get a few thousand visitors per day.
The list of sites that the screensaver will target is taken from real-time blacklists generated by organisations such as Spamcop. To limit the chance of mistakes being made, Lycos is using people to ensure that the sites are selling spam goods.
As these sites rarely use advertising to offset hosting costs, the burden of high-bandwidth bills could make spam too expensive, said Mr Pollmann.
Sites will also slow down under the weight of data requests. Early results show that response times of some sites have deteriorated by up to 85%.
Users do not have to be registered users of Lycos to download and use the screensaver.
While working, the screensaver shows the websites that are being bothered with requests for data.
The screensaver is due to be launched across Europe on 1 December and before now has only been trialled in Sweden.
Despite the soft launch, Mr Pollmann said that the screensaver had been downloaded more than 20,000 times in the last four days.
"There's a huge user demand to not only filter spam day-by-day but to do something more," he said "Before now users have never had the chance to be a bit more offensive."
Know more: http://makelovenotspam.com/intl
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by KnightieBoy on 12-01-2004 at 02:50 PM
yeah.. I downloaded it yesterday.. I love it 
I would have never expected this from Lycos.. It's about time those spammers get to experience the feeling we feel: irritated
Is it legal though? Lycos says it is, but it's on the edge, isn't it?
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-01-2004 at 03:05 PM
wow! that's a great idea from these Lycos people...i'll download this for sure..
who cares if it is legal ? This spam so f****ng gets on my nerves !!! 
Edit: Could someone actually mirror the screensaver because their website is hopelessly slow dDoSed, hacked or whatever...it's down
..
no chance to download it....
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by WDZ on 12-01-2004 at 03:21 PM
It's only for Europe? I wonder why... 
quote:Maybe the spammers are fighting back with their own DOS attacks...
Originally posted by AndreY
Edit: Could someone actually mirror the screensaver because their website is hopelessly slow
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-01-2004 at 03:37 PM
makelovenotspam.com is down
.. possibly by a dDoS attack
see this: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39175578,00.htm
quote:lol
within hours of the makelovenotspam.com site being launched, the original front page was replaced with a simple message:
"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.
Finnish antivirus firm F-Secure, which advised users not to participate in Lycos' campaign because of "possible legal problems", suspects the site has been hacked by a pro-spam group because "they definitely would have a motive to attack the site"."
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by KeyStorm on 12-01-2004 at 03:41 PM
quote:Lol, I noticed that, too
Originally posted by WDZ
Maybe the spammers are fighting back with their own DOS attacks...
You can get it from p2p, hopefully.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by saralk on 12-01-2004 at 05:13 PM
you can get it from http://download2.makelovenotspam.com/screensavers...screensaver_en.exe, however it wont work yet cos the servers are still down
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-01-2004 at 09:10 PM
thanks saral
Lycos denied that makelovenotspam.com got hacked. They said it was a hoax. Read more at zdnet.co.uk
Their servers are still down
The servers are up again,
Europans, please join the fight against spam!
Americans can join aswell, just choose "International English".
makelovenotspam.com
(I know that this is not the best way to fight spam but the only way we have)
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by _Humphreys on 12-01-2004 at 09:15 PM
I might try this to get revenge on the spammers............ will Omar be effected?
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by Chrono on 12-01-2004 at 09:18 PM
well its kinda lame, but i like it
Lets kill th3 
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by _Humphreys on 12-01-2004 at 09:22 PM
lol I could 'annoy a spammer' all night. Right time to get back at those pesky porn newsletters and ads.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by Concord Dawn on 12-01-2004 at 10:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Attitude Extreme
I might try this to get revenge on the spammers............ will Omar be effected?
No, Omar will not be affected. He's a person, not a website.
I can't get the site to work!!!
Can someone please either attach it or link to it?Edit: Download link worked.....somehow.....
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by Striker on 12-01-2004 at 10:08 PM
this actualy seems really retarded. your fighting spam by ddos'ing their web site. ddos'ing it what kills the net in the first place. and just think of what would happen if the program ever got hacked., the hacker doesn't even need to upload a virus, the hacker will hvae the program installed on millions of comps.
*claps* i will never install that kinda program on my computer
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by Anubis on 12-02-2004 at 04:22 PM
I installed it, but every time I try to use it I get this error message, I added it to my accepted programs list in my (McAfee) firewall and then tried it with it down, it didn't work...Boo! I want to annoy Mr. ...I attached a screenshot. But my main guess is that my ISP doesn't reach them, for some reason...
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by fluffy_lobster on 12-03-2004 at 05:30 PM
It looks like makelovenotspam.com is back up but they've suspended the service. Both the screensaver and the website load, but simply say "stay tuned". I hope it's temporary 
By the way, can I just point out that this was my idea. I distinctly remember suggesting this a few years back
Striker: yes ddossing affects all of the net, but so does spam traffic. Compared to the fairly small scale of this so far, big spam businesses put huge load on the internet. At the end of the day, it's just making spammers pay more for that load and hopefully be persuaded to give up. Somehow I don't think that any hacking attempt is ever going to get as far as to run a ddos attack on a harmless victim either.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by megamuff on 12-03-2004 at 06:13 PM
I like this idea. Recently I have been receiving spam in my spam folder... Quite irritating people want me to buy their warez and drugs...
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by WDZ on 12-06-2004 at 01:59 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996752
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-06-2004 at 03:12 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996752 (originally posted by WDZ.)
quote:Damn !
Originally posted by newscientist.com
A controversial service enabling frustrated computer users to attack sites associated with spam has been halted.
quote:Unethical ?? What's unethical, spamming innocent people to death with fucking penis enlargement mails, or pinging the companie's websites to death ? Calling this unethical is totally stupid. The definition of unethical is: "not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior" If these spam-companies are considered as "ethically correct", then, good night, let the spam rule the world. As distributing spam is not ethically correct, fighting the people who distribute spam can't be accused of beeing unethical from my point of view.
Originally posted by newscientist.com
[...]several backbone internet service providers could have blacklisted the site, refusing to route traffic to or from it.
"It's probably because they believe it's unethical or perhaps because it breaks their terms of agreement,"[...]
quote:Exactly. That's the point, it isn't designed as a DDoS attack, it just slows the sites down, increases the spammers bills and doesn't hurt anyone exept the spammer (and Lycos' servers).
Originally posted by newscientist.com
Lycos Europe maintains that their approach is legal and says the service is not designed to knock sites offline, only to slow their network capacity to 5%.
quote:Is spamming ethical ?? Doesn't spamming contravene with "accepted protocols" ? How can people see fucking ethics everywhere, they're just websites owned by companys that distribute huge amounts of spam all around the web and increase the amount of traffic.
Originally posted by newscientist.com
But many experts question the ethics of the project, suggesting that it contravenes accepted protocols.
quote:Who cares ??
Originally posted by newscientist.com
And, by 2 December, several sites targeted by the Lycos software had crashed completely.[...]
quote:Of course Anti-spam companies are against fighting spam, they would without spam and probably even support spammers. And, it's not meant as DDos Attack ! A DDoS attack is harmless in comparison to the fact that spamming companies use even more illegal ways to distribute their spam, e.g via worms. And, if we shouldn't fight abuse (spam) with abuse, what alternatives do we have ? None.
Originally posted by newscientist.com
"You can't fight abuse with abuse," says Steve Linford, of the UK antispam group Spamhaus. "We don't support it because, technically, it is a denial-of service attack and nobody should be doing it."
quote:Of course some webcompanies will be affected but whoever cooperates with Spammers is a half illegal subject himself. The problem is that antispam companies or providers will never act against spammers because they are a huge source of income.
Originally posted by newscientist.com
Linford says the main trouble is that targeted sites will typically share hosting services with several other sites, which are also likely to suffer from a DoS bombardment.
quote:Why not try poking the grizzly to death ? Again sometimes attack is the best defence; if we just leave them, they will grow even bigger and more economical damage will be done by gigantic amounts of spam sent across the internet. And again, it is not meant to be a DDoS attack. Anti-virus / Anti-spam companies will of course never have the slightest desire to "kill" spammers, they would kill themselves. If they don't act, we have to.
Originally posted by newscientist.com
"Attacking a spammer's website is like poking a grizzly bear sleeping in your back garden with a pointy stick,” says Graham Cluley of Sophos, an anti-virus company in the UK. "Not only is this screensaver similar in its approach to a potentially illegal distributed denial-of-service attack, but it is also in danger of turning innocent computer users into vigilantes."
I don't see anything unethical in attacking spammers. period.
this post was way too excessive
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by CookieRevised on 12-06-2004 at 03:29 PM
quote:By calling one method (used by lycos) unethical they don't say the other method (used by spammers) is ethical. In fact _both_ methods can be considered unethical...
Originally posted by AndreY
Unethical ?? What's unethical, spamming innocent people to death with fucking penis enlargement mails, or pinging the companie's websites to death ? Calling this unethical is totally stupid. The definition of unethical is: "not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior" If these spam-companies are considered as "ethically correct", then, good night, let the spam rule the world. As distributing spam is not ethically correct, fighting the people who distribute spam can't be accused of beeing unethical from my point of view.
quote:It has the same effect. No matter how it is "designed". Read the article further: they stated also that many other sites have been down due to this lycos attack. also they state that other companies who don't have anything todo with the spam-sites can be effected too if they happen to be on the same server.
Originally posted by AndreY
Exactly. That's the point, it isn't designed as a DDoS attack, it just slows the sites down, increases the spammers bills and doesn't hurt anyone exept the spammer (and Lycos' servers).
quote:Again, by saying that what lycos is doing is unethical, they do _not_ say that what spammers are doing is ethical...
Originally posted by AndreY
Is spamming ethical ?? Doesn't spamming contravene with "accepted protocols" ? How can people see fucking ethics everywhere, they're just websites owned by companys that distribute huge amounts of spam all around the web and increase the amount of traffic.
quote:
Originally posted by AndreY
Of course Anti-spam companies are against fighting spam, they would without spam and probably even support spammers.
quote:
Originally posted by AndreY
The problem is that antispam companies or providers will never act against spammers because they are a huge source of income.
quote:Several companies who have _nothing_ in common can still be on the same server; Being on the same server has _nothing_ to do with being affiliates. It could be that they are affiliated, but also in many cases they are not.
Originally posted by AndreY
Of course some webcompanies will be affected but whoever cooperates with Spammers is a half illegal subject himself.
quote:The result is the same.
Originally posted by AndreY
it is not meant to be a DDoS attack
<sarcastic>
Let's send a B52 and drop some cluster bombs on the server-complex.
Hu? Illegal? Unethical? Why? It isn't a DDoS attack, isn't it?
</sarcastic>
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-06-2004 at 04:06 PM
quote:Yes, I wanted to say that sometimes our current view of ethics and such things has to be revised. Some things must be done in order to end another thing that is just as bad/even badder. See Iraq: US intervention was considered unethical but was still needed to end Saddam Husseins regime because he killed many thousands Iraqis. We can't just sit there and do nothing because it could be unethical; because this spamming is unethical too and has to get to an end, no matter how.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
By calling one method (used by lycos) unethical they don't say the other method (used by spammers) is ethical. In fact _both_ methods can be considered unethical...
quote:meant to be "Of course Anti-spam companies are against fighting spammers, they would die without spam; thus probably even support spammers."
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:
Originally posted by AndreY
Of course Anti-spam companies are against fighting spam, they would without spam and probably even support spammers.
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Let's send a B52 and drop some cluster bombs on the server-complex.
Hu? Illegal? Unethical? Why? It isn't a DDoS attack, isn't it?
lol thats a bit too drastic...a DDoS attack doen't destroy the server, it disconnects it from the internet by overflowing it. ..But, bombing spammy servers would be a good idea actually 
...As I said, as we have almost no other way to fight the spammers, we must do something against them even if some innocent people are hit. The Lycos attempt to help solve the problem was a step in the right direction which should be continued.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by CookieRevised on 12-06-2004 at 04:22 PM
quote:I understand what you're saying, but still. Some (well, more like many) still found the US intervention unethical, since maybe it could be solved by not going into war. But we never will know that for sure of course.
Originally posted by AndreY
Yes, I wanted to say that sometimes our current view of ethics and such things has to be revised. Some things must be done in order to end another thing that is just as bad/even badder. See Iraq: US intervention was considered unethical but was still needed to end Saddam Husseins regime because he killed many thousands Iraqis.
quote:Make it a EM Bomb then or something... My point is the outcome will be the same, designed as DDoS attack or not.
Originally posted by AndreY
lol thats a bit too drastic...a DDoS attack doen't destroy the server, it disconnects it from the internet by overflowing it.
quote:There are ways to fight it without hurting innocent people...
Originally posted by AndreY
As I said, as we have almost no other way to fight the spammers, we must do something against them even if some innocent people are hit.
quote:More like a step backwards if you ask me....
Originally posted by AndreY
The Lycos attempt to help solve the problem was a step in the right direction which should be continued.
Th way to fight spam is to report it to the autorities. Many spammers have already been punished by law. This method works (but is not widely know)... If more and more authorities make laws agains spamming, more and more the spam will reduce...
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-06-2004 at 05:45 PM
quote:well, Lycos intended to control the pinging of websites which seems to have failed, but if they would have managed to stop pinging at 5% - 10% of left bandwith, it couldn't be classified as DDoS attack, because the websites would still be online. DDoS attacks are attacks where the designated goal is to overload the server and to take the website down.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
the outcome will be the same, designed as DDoS attack or not.
quote:Yes, this would definitely be a better way but at the moment it's unrealistic because most servers are located somewhere in Asia or anywhere scattered around the world. It would be extremely hard, and it would take a long time, to get the governments to make laws against spamming and actually take actions against them. And maybe some governments have interests in keeping the spamming business up.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
The way to fight spam is to report it to the autorities. Many spammers have already been punished by law. This method works (but is not widely know)... If more and more authorities make laws agains spamming, more and more the spam will reduce...
I know that the Lycos' way isn't the best, but the only that would work in in the foreseeable future.
And another problem is that every anti-spam company would be against laws, resolutions against spam and will try to block them. So making laws against spam could be hard and will take a long time. And even when laws against spamming are introduced, many companies will stay underground and continue their work. The Lycos attack would work much faster, but I see that it would hit some innocent people too.
Should we just sit here and wait till some government in Asia makes a law against spamming ?
As we can't influence the law-making process in Asia, we could at least try to make spamming harder by using these "unethical" ways like Lycos introduced.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by CookieRevised on 12-06-2004 at 06:21 PM
quote:/sright
Originally posted by AndreY
And another problem is that every anti-spam company would be against laws, resolutions against spam and will try to block them.
quote:Or by not responding to those spammails (even not "unsubscribing" <=big hint) and not giving out your email.....
Originally posted by AndreY
As we can't influence the law-making process in Asia, we could at least try to make spamming harder by using these "unethical" ways like Lycos introduced.
^^ revenue generated by spam will drop
^^ spamming will become unprofitable
^^ hey, what'd you know, same result as what lycos wanted to achieve without using dodgy methods...
EDIT: no problem
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 12-06-2004 at 07:00 PM
well then, the conclusion would be
"don't respond to spam." 
And the Lycos' "make love not spam" campaign is stopped now anyway.
ZDNet.uk: Lycos antispam campaign bites the dust
I'll remove my screensaver now as it's over.
And, Cookie, thanks for this friendly discussion. 
Respect. 
AndreY
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by kangie on 12-09-2004 at 01:22 AM
i once got so pissed off at a person who randomly spammed me with one of those "i knew a relative of yours, i have millions of dollars, for a fee of $500 i will transfer it to your bank account, all i need is your name, address, creditcard no., billing address for the CC, expiry date and security no. for that CC"
i just found 10 sites or so, and signed the replyto: email up to a couple of hundred newsletters.... hoped they enjoyed having their account filled up
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by CookieRevised on 12-09-2004 at 08:39 AM
quote:almost all spams like that are coming from people/companies who sign up for multiple mails to send the spam from. They don't check that mailaddress, not do they care how much they recieve. They just let it die out and sign up for another emailadress the next time.
Originally posted by kangie
i once got so pissed off at a person who randomly spammed me with one of those "i knew a relative of yours, i have millions of dollars, for a fee of $500 i will transfer it to your bank account, all i need is your name, address, creditcard no., billing address for the CC, expiry date and security no. for that CC"
i just found 10 sites or so, and signed the replyto: email up to a couple of hundred newsletters.... hoped they enjoyed having their account filled up
What it will do (reacting with signing the spamaddress up to other newsletters) is creating more bandwidth use on the net and slowing the net down even more...
eg: some years ago, when you send a mail, it was recieved on the other side of the world almost instantly. Now-a-days it can take up a whole day. And this isn't because of more people using the net (of course it has something to do with it, but that is only a very very small percentage) but because of 90% of the mail that is send in the world consists of spam/counter-spam/virusses/etc. There are many studies done and all come to this same conclussion...
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by kangie on 12-09-2004 at 01:18 PM
but cookie, they needed to read the reply id sent with my details in.... so they wouldnt just not read it 
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by WDZ on 12-10-2004 at 05:35 PM
Another news article related to this topic: "Trojan horse" computer spy masquerades as anti-spam screensaver 
RE: RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by megamuff on 12-12-2004 at 05:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:/sright
Originally posted by AndreY
And another problem is that every anti-spam company would be against laws, resolutions against spam and will try to block them.
quote:Or by not responding to those spammails (even not "unsubscribing" <=big hint) and not giving out your email.....
Originally posted by AndreY
As we can't influence the law-making process in Asia, we could at least try to make spamming harder by using these "unethical" ways like Lycos introduced.
^^ revenue generated by spam will drop
^^ spamming will become unprofitable
^^ hey, what'd you know, same result as what lycos wanted to achieve without using dodgy methods...
EDIT: no problem
unsubscribe links do not work. i have spent a week once unsubscribing from every spam email i received, and now i receive even more then ever. in fact, i receive about 2-5 every day, compared to 1 a day when they started coming in. and although they go to my spam folder, the fact that they keep sending the emails at all is extremely insulting. they are targeting a 16 year old male in the hopes that i will buy their sex drugs..
i am in the mood to make a macro program to continue what the wonderful screensaver started.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by jren207 on 12-12-2004 at 11:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by megamuff
unsubscribe links do not work. i have spent a week once unsubscribing from every spam email i received, and now i receive even more then ever. in fact, i receive about 2-5 every day, compared to 1 a day when they started coming in.
I did that, although I didn't really get that many afterwards, a few though. What happens is they send you an email because they find your address somewhere (maybe, spider web pages for address etc.). This is a test. Then when you go to the unsubscribe page, and enter your email, they know that the account is active, then they keep spamming it.
RE: RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by megamuff on 12-12-2004 at 11:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jren207
quote:
Originally posted by megamuff
unsubscribe links do not work. i have spent a week once unsubscribing from every spam email i received, and now i receive even more then ever. in fact, i receive about 2-5 every day, compared to 1 a day when they started coming in.
I did that, although I didn't really get that many afterwards, a few though. What happens is they send you an email because they find your address somewhere (maybe, spider web pages for address etc.). This is a test. Then when you go to the unsubscribe page, and enter your email, they know that the account is active, then they keep spamming it.
i let about 15 come in before i started unsubscribing, which then made them come in faster.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by uberdosis on 12-19-2004 at 05:48 AM
quote:
It has been reported in the media that fake software is being circulated on the Internet
under the "makelovenotspam" name, which is actually not a screensaver but a computer virus.
Please note that the "makelovenotspam" initiative has been discontinued. There is no point
in trying to obtain a copy of the screensaver, as it will not function anymore. Moreover,
you may be offered a computer virus which has nothing to do with the original campaign, and
may actually be harmful to your computer and the data stored on it. You are therefore
advised not to download or install any software purporting to be the "makelovenotspam"
screensaver, and to remove any copy you may have on your PC.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by kangie on 12-19-2004 at 06:07 PM
i wouldnt anyway.... i get 1-2 bits of spam every couple of weeks to my most used hotmail account, and ive signed up fo alot on it
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 01-25-2005 at 11:49 AM
Project Honey Pot
A new and probably better way to fight spam.
It doesn't attack the spammers servers, but allows website administrators to collect the neccessary informations about spam bots/spiders and their owners easily, to gather the needed evidence to sue them and send them to jail.
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by user13774 on 01-25-2005 at 12:55 PM
I just read some of the FAQ and it sounds very good! This actually helps to get spammers sued ^_^
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by fluffy_lobster on 01-25-2005 at 07:51 PM
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by jren207 on 01-29-2005 at 05:14 PM
sounds like a good idea, i'll try that
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by paperless on 01-29-2005 at 05:21 PM
Errm.. i went to the site and it has een stopped.. no more sceensvaer
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by andrey on 01-29-2005 at 05:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by paperless
Errm.. i went to the site and it has een stopped.. no more sceensvaer
Errm.. we're not talking about makelovenotspam..
read the last few posts
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by megamuff on 01-29-2005 at 07:46 PM
cool link i'll go check it out
RE: Overflow spam owner's websites easily by Ezra on 01-29-2005 at 07:50 PM
I joined, but no harvesters found yet... Oh well... just wait