«

The launch of my site in the hope of gathering people to fight adware and
spyware on a pro-active basis seems to have really ticked off a few folks.
The attempts to penetrate my firewall have greatly increased. Also the
number of virus loaded messages seems to have jumped a bit. Not really a
problem but it is interesting.

For those of you who claim that I know very little about the available
programs to prevent adware and spyware infection, you are correct! Until
recently, I really had not had much of a problem with it and had done little
research at all. I am now learning quickly.

For those that simply say that one must just protect his or her own system
and go on with life, I disagree. That is like telling an assault victim that
they should have learned more self defense and to get on with life without
trying to prosecute the offender.

Adware and spyware assault the systems of Internet users. Simple as that.
These programs and scripts load onto people's systems without any type of
informed consent. There is nothing that asks the user's permission to gather
information and send it back to so-called marketing research companies.
There is no option at all for the un-suspecting Internet user except to deal
with the after effects.

I feel there should be a way for those victimized by this sneakware to get
some payback and at the same time simply make it too costly to employ such
tactics. All done in a legal and open manner.

Another organization has been brought to my attention that is having quite a
bit of success against fraudulent "online banks" or fake banks. that is
"Artists Against 419". I think they have a great idea in the way they use up
the bandwidth of these frauds and I am currently working on the program
specification to employ a similar tactic against adware and spyware. Their
web site is www.aa419 I encourage you to visit them.
The tactics of those that try to hack into my own system or to send viruses
via email only give me more ammunition. Through tracking programs, I learn
more of what networks are or are not trustworthy. This information gets
posted to my web site about once or twice a week. A searchable database is
in the works and there are other databases already on the Internet that can
be searched by the general public.

One last note. I am not trying to "make money" from this. Currently I am
spending about $600 per month all out of my own pocket and that is fine. It
may take longer to get things done that way but if that is the way it is
then so be it! The absolute best support I can get is information and
instruction from the Internet community anyway. I really don't think I am
all alone in this battle anyway. There are others out there that want to rid
the Internet of the adware and spyware assaults. We will find each other
eventually.

Revenger

http://www.adware-revenge.com

Me too! I was not aware of it unless it happens to be one of google's ads.
I'll check it out.

Must be some of the advertisements served up by Google! I have some control
over that and will look into blocking ads from vendors that serve up adware
and spyware. Of I may just abandon Google ads totally.

revenger wrote:
> One last note. I am not trying to "make money" from this. Currently I am
> spending about $600 per month all out of my own pocket and that is fine. It
> may take longer to get things done that way but if that is the way it is
> then so be it! The absolute best support I can get is information and
> instruction from the Internet community anyway. I really don't think I am
> all alone in this battle anyway. There are others out there that want to rid
> the Internet of the adware and spyware assaults. We will find each other
> eventually.
>
> Revenger
>
> http://www.adware-revenge.com

Well, full marks for effort and fighting the good fight. I'm curious as
to why you have a link at the top of your page to an adware vendor
though......
E.

revenger wrote:

> Me too! I was not aware of it unless it happens to be one of google's ads.
> I'll check it out.

It appears to be a dynamic link delivery - after a refresh it delivered
links targeted to the country I am currently in.
I dunno what other people think, but I don't trust google.
I hate scumware vendors with a passion. Good on you for making a stand.
E.

Well,
what can I say.
Most of the "Actions from today:" entries are normal viruses, randomly
sent.
That you seem to think they were targeted just shows that you currently
lack the skills or ability to provide ay useful service at all. In
fact, you're just causing more trouble for innocently infected users,
weren't they the people you were trying to help?

It's quite simple, just because you are entitled to have an opinion on
everything, doesn't mean you should.

Also, looking at your site, I see nothing to warrant anyone doing
anything to you. There are bigger fish even in the shallow end of the
pond

regards

dc

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:16:41 GMT, "revenger"
<> wrote:

>One last note. I am not trying to "make money" from this. Currently I am
>spending about $600 per month all out of my own pocket

Thats a lot of money for hosting a website with no content
supported by advertising.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

"revenger" <> wrote in message
news:42255ae7$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>
> http://www.adware-revenge.com

Well done for taking the initiative.

The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the wrapping
looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg

--
Ian

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:23 +0000, Apollo wrote:
>
>
> "revenger" <> wrote in message
> news:42255ae7$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>>
>> http://www.adware-revenge.com
>
> Well done for taking the initiative.
>
> The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the wrapping
> looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg

Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
these days.

--

remove 999 in order to email me

"Leythos" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:23 +0000, Apollo wrote:
>>
>> The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the
>> wrapping
>> looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg
>
> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5
> and then 6,
> FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on
> Windows 98SE,
> Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to
> make sure
> their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at
> 800x600,
> 1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming
> very rare
> these days.
>

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
display fine in FireFox 1.00.

I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is
common, and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe
even higher.

--
Ian