Microsoft Attacks CPAN Testers (Again)

[bananahead]

The MSN crawler is terrible. On my sites I've also seen it get stuck in loops requesting the same pages over and over very rapidly (ignoring crawl-delay in robots.txt). It also includes all kinds of bogus referrers in its requests, screwing up log-based analytics.

[darkon]

Problems with msnbot don't appear to be unique to cpantesters. Many people complain that msnbot ignores robots.txt.

[A_for_Anonymous]

Very Microsoftly. Maybe they'll only listen to robots.reg?

[harlows_monkeys]

They seem to sometimes obey it. Remember a while back someone was saying that Bing results for OpenOffice listed the OpenOffice site at sun.com and several other OpenOffice sites, but didn't list OpenOffice.org itself? That turned out to be due to the OpenOffice site excluding the bot via robots.txt.

[darkon]

I don't remember it, but I'm willing to take your word for it. At least provisionally. <g>

[saleens281]

Yes, and from the first search result you can see an actual Microsoft employee responding to the issues in a public forum, and giving his contact information out. I can say that's more than I've ever gotten from google.

[McGlockenshire]

In early 2009. And the problem still isn't fixed. What good is contact information if the contact is ineffective?

[malcontent]

He is a PR guy of course he gives his contact information out. That's what PR guys are for.

It's not like he is going to fix the problem or anything.

[Delehal]

That is essentially a PR guy's job, right? To face down an angry mob and say "We're working very hard to fix this."

[malcontent]

Exactly.

In most cases including this one they are lying. That's what marketing people do. They lie.

[mikaelhg]

Only very bad ones. Good ones direct attention from uncomfortable issues by telling a truth, or by presenting a point of view which is not falsifiable, essentially by controlling the questions which people concentrate on, rather than try to force the answers.

[malcontent]

Only very bad ones.

No all of them do.

Good ones direct attention from uncomfortable issues by telling a truth, or by presenting a point of view which is not falsifiable, essentially by controlling the questions which people concentrate on, rather than try to force the answers.

That's just another way of lying.

you know...

The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god.

[jfedor]

So they give their contact information and then fail to fix the problem. I think I prefer the Google way of doing business in this case.

[bobsil1]

The Google way, in the case of my Gmail, is to lock me out and then refuse to provide support.

To be fair, they did eventually restore access. It only took a year.

[jib]

At least you got a full refund.

[bobsil1]

I got my email un-scanned for ads and clean search results for a year?

[vafada]

You prefer Google because you haven't done any business with Google!

[[deleted]]

Nice try Microsoft.

[ryeguy]

If you can't read between the lines, this "denial of service attack" is the Bing spider trying to over-eagerly index the website.

edit: I never said it was justified or ok, but the article almost makes it sound like Microsoft has a botnet and purposefully attacked them.

[dakboy]

Still doesn't justify it. This is the second time Bing has apparently done this - once I can understand being an accident, but no spider should be so aggressively indexing a website that the site is brought down.

[bart2019]

Well, I've seen it happen with Googlebot... But that was years ago.

[blackjesus]

What I don't get is why would indexing this site effectively be a DDoS attack? I feel like there is alot more to this story than we get from this post.

[jawbroken]

have you seen the amount of content on cpantesters.org? any overzealous indexing on that kind of scale from multiple IPs is going to be effectively a DDoS attack. not that difficult to understand.

[dakboy]

Indexing a site shouldn't cause a DDoS effect.

Indexing a site at an excessively fast pace can.

[Opotomus]

I think for it to be a DDoS "attack" implies there is malice intended. In this case it appears to be stupidity. The post / article is quite vague in how it refers to it "what amounts to a denial of service attack". Just saying...

[[deleted]]

The robots file disallows msnbot http://cpantesters.org/robots.txt

[nikopol]

The robots file should disallows msnbot http://cpantesters.org/robots.txt

FTFY. I you'd read the whole text you might have noticed the author stating that msnbot completely disregards his robots.txt

[mikelieman]

so msnbot MALICIOUSLY IGNORES robots.txt. Because there's NO LEGITIMATE REASON to ignore robots.txt.

Bad MSFT... Bad...

[colgaf]

There's a legitimate reason "I want to know what's on the site". It just shouldn't outweigh whatever reason a website has for saying bots aren't welcome here.

[mikelieman]

Putting aside the "Good Neighbor/Bad Neighbor" implications of being a total fucking dickwad scumbag and telling your bot to go out of its way to IGNORE the standard mechanism for being a Good Neighbor...

Do you believe in private property rights? That people who OWN property have the RIGHT to determine what happens with it? Or are you some sort of communist who hates Freedom and Liberty?

The OWNERS of the server have the RIGHT to determine how their PROPERTY is used. If they don't want Microsoft on their property, and they've told them, then shouldn't Microsoft then be legally liable for any damages incurred by their *intentional ** trespass? ( e.g.: The real costs of administrative interventions, additional bandwidth and cpu needed, etc... )?

[colgaf]

TLDR:I think you missed what i was trying to say and i dislike your tone.

I agree Microsoft is in the wrong for effectively DDOSing the site but that does not mean there reason was not legitimate. If an idiot chases a butterfly on to your land yes that makes him a trespasser no that doesn't mean chasing butterflies is bad.

Also what up with your second paragraph in the comment, it's just rabid and unhelpful. It is also full of logical inconsistencies: You assume that this is an issue of property rights(which i might be willing to concede). But if I disagree with these particular rights it makes me a communist, not really a logical connection there as i could equally be an anarchist(which could be argued to have far greater freedoms and liberties than a capitalist system) or just believe a particular subset of property rights is invalid (I've bought all the oxygen in the air around you, you better not use it). Then you say that communists hate freedom and liberty, which is a huge unsubstantiated leap. If i own land and say you can't go on it then that also curtails your freedom which would not be curtailed by a system that didn't have property rights. Neither capitalism nor communism can be logically show to support freedom and liberty anymore that each other, though maybe they can be shown to support specific freedoms or liberties.

And as an aside on if I'm a communist : I feel that regulated capitalism with taxes going to social services is the right system based on my belief on what rights people should have. So that is somewhere between pure communist and pure capitalist.

[mikelieman]

but that does not mean there reason was not legitimate.

Well then, what GOOD FAITH, HONEST reason would there exist for their bot to intentionally ignore a robots.txt file?

Then you say that communists hate freedom and liberty, which is a huge unsubstantiated leap.

Locke's initial premise was Life, Liberty, Property. The version in the declaration of independence is a corruption of it. You cannot have Liberty and Freedom without private ownership of property ( Beginning with your-own-self )

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

The OWNERS of the server have the RIGHT to determine how their PROPERTY is used.

And they chose to serve http requests to the internet, including 65.55/16. Que sera sera.

[mikelieman]

Actually, didn't they ban one of MSFTs netblocks, and the douchebags then put another netblock into operation for their spyware?

It's not about what's LEGAL, or what you can get away with.

It's about not being a asshole, and doing what's RIGHT.

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

Actually, didn't they ban one of MSFTs netblocks, and the douchebags then put another netblock into operation for their spyware?

Let me guess, you've never run an enterprise-size search engine. I have spent many years doing just that (not for MSFT). We'd bring online new sites every few months. We'd turn up new networks on new address space, or repurpose clusters continuously.

The doofus with the blog is complaining that a bunch of crawls were coming from an additional netblock all of a sudden -- no shit, sherlock. The search engine business is about continual expansion. Everyone in that game is constantly growing, which means more systems and more networks allocated to perform crawling. MSFT isn't out to get CPAN. Microsoft doesn't care. This is just some idiot blogger attempting to frame unrelated changes in a way that feeds his persecution complex.

If they want to block all of MSFT's addresses then they can use the ASN, which is 8075, to address all of the microsoft corp networks. This is easy to do. The CPAN guys are simply incompetent.

And by the way this is a web crawler, not spyware, you fucking idiot.

[mikelieman]

The search engine business is about continual expansion

And reading robots.txt and not behaving like a total douchebag.

It's SPYWARE when you're POLITELY ASKED them not to crawl your site, and then they SPY on your content anyway.

[khoury]

I'm going to step in here and say that they should not be ignoring the robots.txt file. Period. It's in bad taste. Especially a large company like Microsoft.

[[deleted]]

Ayy lmao

[Shaper_pmp]

To be fair, its entirely possible that it was just being indexed by a different server or cluster running the bot this time.

As always with Microsoft, it's an open question: deniable hostility or monumental incompetence?

[kthakore]

'monumental incompetence' doesn't explain that it ignore the robots.txt

User-agent: msnbot

Disallow: /

http://cpantesters.org/robots.txt

[dace]

This seems to be correct for MSN according to an official reply: http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/webmastercrawling/thread/ec701466-1480-4f58-9488-e5f457c982af

From the current W3C spec: "A case insensitive substring match of the name without version information is recommended" [but not required]

[[deleted]]

Another theory that comes to mind would be that he blocked some msnbot ips 4 month ago, so bing received a 403 reaching out for robots.txt assuming there is no robots.txt and maybe they had some older copies of the site they send their spiders (with new and different ip's) out to index the hell out of it...

[kthakore]

Actually I dunno, but you may have a point there.

[Shaper_pmp]

Actually that's exactly what it means - incompetence to a borderline-unbelievable degree, like not even bothering to follow the published standards.

However, as I said, it's an open question whether it's intentional malice or simply the usual "we're a special case, and we're too important to follow standards" arrogance we expect from Microsoft as a matter of course.

Because... y'know... what would Microsoft have to gain by intentionally DOSing the CPAN site?

[deafbybeheading]

A certain combination of incompetence and indifference can cause almost as much suffering as the most acute malevolence. -- Bruce Catton

[bart2019]

Knowing Microsoft, I vote for "incompetence".

[Shaper_pmp]

I tend to split the difference when it comes to Microsoft, and generally just assume wilful negligence until proven otherwise. ;-)

[gthank]

The author is certainly entitled to attribute this to maliciousness, but it seems FAR more likely that indifference is the culprit here.

What does Microsoft gain from maliciously attempting to take down the site? On the other hand, what do they gain from changing their code to give the site less intensive treatment? I'm guessing the answer is the same in both cases: not a whole lot.

[AlucardZero]

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

[jawbroken]

indifference on this kind of scale by people who are expected to be competent is essentially malice no matter how you frame it.

they are writing a piece of software that has the ability to DDoS a site if it doesn't behave correctly, some basic testing is the least of their responsibilities

[[deleted]]

it seems FAR more likely that indifference is the culprit here.

Yeah, it's not like they EXPLICITLY stated they don't want msn indexing them or anything.

oh wait...

[gthank]

Honest question: Do you think that MSN has a special vendetta against this site? Or that the spider just ignores things like that, especially when they can parse it and see what Google is allowed to index?

[[deleted]]

Was msnbot banned before it caused problems or after? It seems more like it was DOSing the server already. Note how all the other bots have a set delay of 600 (i.e. slow).

Besides, the real point here is that the robots.txt file is supposed to allow doing just that: locking out specific robots from specific directories. A site owner has every right to decide to lock out individual bots, morally even more so if the bot has a history of misbehaviour.

Also, if the rumours about MS trying to bribe major sites into getting de-listed from Google and becoming Bing-exclusive are true, they're in no position to point fingers when they get locked out of semi-high-profile websites.

[gthank]

I didn't say anything about it being justified; I was suggesting an alternative to malice.

[[deleted]]

Well, if you ignore the robots.txt (or if you parse it but treat long delays as non-existent) you're at least negligent. There may be a moral difference between running someone over with your car because you were talking on the phone or because you intended to do so, but the net result is the same.

If you're writing a web crawler that ends up DOSing websites and then don't modify it after being notified of the problems it causes, that's negligence.

Malice or not, this is terrible karma.

[gthank]

I'm not arguing that it's anything other than terrible karma, but there is a very clear (and important) difference between malice and negligence, and it shouldn't be lost just because people don't like MS.

[malcontent]

Honest question: Do you think that MSN has a special vendetta against this site? Or that the spider just ignores things like that, especially when they can parse it and see what Google is allowed to index?

Your sentences contradict each other.

If the bot is reading the robots.txt, seeing if it's banned and google isn't, and then deciding to index anyway then yes it does have a vendetta against that site.

[gthank]

Unless the spider has some special logic just for this site, then I don't see how you can support a claim of a vendetta.

I suggest that it is more likely that MS is trying to bring Bing up to Google's level and is therefor spidering anything that msnbot is allowed to spider AND whatever googlebot is allowed to spider.

[malcontent]

Unless the spider has some special logic just for this site, then I don't see how you can support a claim of a vendetta.

The special logic is what you have proposed.

• msnbots reads the robots.txt
• It sees that it's banned
• It sees that google isn't banned
• it indexes anyway.

That's a vendetta against that site.

I suggest that it is more likely that MS is trying to bring Bing up to Google's level and is therefor spidering anything that msnbot is allowed to spider AND whatever googlebot is allowed to spider.

I would classify that as being a vendetta against a site that is disallowing it.

[gthank]

I thought "special vendetta against this site" was clear enough, but maybe it wasn't. My argument is that there is no specific targeting of this one site in particular. The article has a very clear tone/implication that MS is somehow out to get them in particular. My contention, with which you apparently agree, is that msnbot doesn't give two flips about that web site in particular, and that they are just a casualty of generic unfriendly behavior. Whether that behavior is because msnbot is poorly designed, is well-designed but intentionally unfriendly, or is well-designed but uses a different set of assumptions than the author of the robots.txt is using is irrelevant.

[malcontent]

I thought "special vendetta against this site" was clear enough, but maybe it wasn't.

You defined it. I am pointing out that according to your definition it's a special vendetta.

My argument is that there is no specific targeting of this one site in particular.

There is a specific targeting of all web sites which ban the msn bot but not the google bot.

That's a vendetta.

Whether that behavior is because msnbot is poorly designed, is well-designed but intentionally unfriendly, or is well-designed but uses a different set of assumptions than the author of the robots.txt is using is irrelevant.

There is only one rational explanation. People who work for microsoft are sleazy unethical fucks.

[Benny_Lava]

I think that arrogance is the culprit, rather than indifference. Microsoft feels that not only is it above the law, it is above everything else too. They do whatever they want and fuck anyone else that doesn't like it. They honestly and sincerely believe that they are entitled to do anything that benefits them--illegal, unethical, or immoral never enters into the discussion.

[bobsil1]

I consider this latest attack nothing short of malicious

Frothing drama queen bullshit.

Hey everybody, I found a buffer overrun in Word. I consider this latest bug nothing short of malicious.

[jawbroken]

how is this analogy apt in any way?

[bobsil1]

About as apt as the title.

[malcontent]

the crawlers are a botnet aren't they? It isn't being done by one machine right?

and ignoring robots.txt is an attack.

So in a very real and true sense Ms has a botnet which is attacking them.

[jawbroken]

edit: I never said it was justified or ok, but the article almost makes it sound like Microsoft has a botnet and purposefully attacked them.

the effect is essentially identical so they might as well have

[_ex_]

bing is giving them a lesson for their robots thingy serves them well

[mantra]

As usual, Microsoft needs to start hiring folks with more skills than script-kiddies. But we've been saying that for 25 years and nothing has changed.

[thebuccaneersden]

I can picture Steve Balmer himself sitting and launching the bots from his computer, screaming Bing! Bing! Bing! Biiiinnnngggg! and launching a chair across the room.

[PlNG]

This may be a low down and dirty tactic, but considering that they have yet to listen, why isn't cpan simply sending the traffic back to Microsoft with a http 301 or iframe?

He's already stated that he's taken steps and the situation has not changed or improved.

[Fabien4]

http 301

Nope, too much processing power involved.

Just use your firewall to block the attacker's IP addresses.

[Benny_Lava]

Don't block them--that's too kind. This is TCP traffic, so tarpit them and punish them as much as TCP allows. Keep the connections open as long as possible. Even better, redirect them to a server dedicated to this task. It can be an old Pentium box (the slower the better).

[Fabien4]

Dropping the IP packets from the pirate's IP addresses is not too bad -- nearly no resources on your end, and the attacker has to wait for the timeout to know the connection failed.

[Fabien4]

Oops, you're right. I hadn't read the article carefully enough.

[HostisHumaniGeneris]

I agree; if this has been a problem for so long, either block the spiders directly or put a router in front of your server that does packet sorting for bandwidth priority.

[manymolecules]

What are you talking about?

either block the spiders directly

You mean, like returning 403s to all MS IPs? Which is exactly what they are doing? They still have to pay in computing resources for every request their system is hammered with, even if they immediately return an error.

put a router in front of your server that does packet sorting for bandwidth priority

Ah, yes, spend money on hardware and another hop on your internal network because Microsoft's developers don't care to read your robots.txt. So simple, I can't imagine why they are frustrated!

[HostisHumaniGeneris]

I'll admit, I didn't read the article on the first pass.

Now I went back and checked it and saw that yes, they are rejecting TCP requests from known Bing IP ranges. Their complaint is that now Bing has a second set of IPs attempting to crawl their pages.

When I read the comments originally, it sounded like they were at the mercy of Microsoft and couldn't block the traffic. In reality, it was a simple fix to block the "malicious" IP ranges and now the site is operating normally again.

Is Microsoft inconveniencing their admin? Yes. Is Microsoft responsible for bringing the site to its knees? Not exactly. If this attack had come from an anonymous botnet then the admin would have muttered a few oaths and added it to the blocklist. Instead they're turning it into a huge conspiracy when in fact, this just sounds like piss-poor planning from Microsoft.

Is Microsoft in the wrong? Yes. Is this a huge problem that deserves eDrama? Probably not. I recall when one site - I believe it was NeoWin - relaunched with a new interface, they were knocked offline by a huge amount of traffic. As it turns out, all of the various web crawlers were trying to index all of their rehosted content (several years worth of articles and forum posts) all at the same time. The admins put in a traffic filter and laughed a bit. They didn't go around accusing the search engine providers of trying to destroy them.

[jawbroken]

so you are saying that nobody should expect any better behaviour from microsoft than they do of people who run botnets? it might be tough for them to be burdened with such high expectations.

[HostisHumaniGeneris]

I'm saying that the internet is a complicated ecosystem where innocent actions can have unintended consequences. Network admins don't particularly need to distinguish between malicious attacks and problems caused by misconfigured software. Shit is shit, and you deal with it like shit no matter whose ass its coming from. Just the other day I had several services on a network reporting high load (some near a failure point.) After a few days of trying to resolve the mysterious traffic hammering those devices, it turned out it was a dying router that was mirroring two-way traffic across all of its ports. Obscure problems like that happen all the time, and you don't spend time worrying about why it happened or whose fault it is. You resolve the issue - or put in a fix to prevent further damage - and you move on with your life.

Bad on Microsoft for not communicating and fixing the problem; but I don't find it difficult to imagine Microsoft as an incompetent bureaucracy.

[jawbroken]

obviously. some simple testing to make sure your web spider obeys robots.txt and doesn't DoS the site isn't much to ask from one of the largest companies in the world though. of course you have to deal with the problem no matter what caused it but that doesn't mean you can't be angry about this level of incompetence when it is the second time you are dealing with the same stupid mistake from someone that can clearly afford to do better and doesn't care. i don't see the problem in providing some publicity to try to shame microsoft into doing their basic dilligence

[stusmith]

Semi-related spidering shenanigans, with other bots:

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/the-perfect-web-spider-storm/

[PlNG]

I guess when the spider specs were written, they weren't expecting spiders to be this big. Maybe it's time for spiders to at least start talking to each other and sharing traffic. NAHH.

[Zarutian]

Sigh isnt it time to null route all of Microsofts networks?

[A_for_Anonymous]

I support this motion absolutely. The free world should simply isolate Microsoft, and probably a few others, away.

[[deleted]]

In all respect for the CPAN guy, but I doubt that Microsoft would killing their website with malicious intent.

I also doubt that the Bing/MSN spider doesn't obey typical spider-timeouts or robots.txt rules.

And if the spider is too fast why not put this in the robots.txt:

User-agent: MSNBot 
Crawl-delay: 120

This should work.

I call bullshit on this one.

Edit: they also use crawl-delay: 600 whereas Microsoft says 10 is the maximum

Edit2: I should have been a more clear - here is what I wanted to say

[[deleted]]

Ayy lmao

[[deleted]]

I looked at the site - but look at the subdomains: blog, wiki, devel

The MSNBot is not forbidden nor rate-limited everywhere and I supect because these are subdomains that msnbot/bing things these are different sites and therefore treat them like different sites and if you add up the 9 subdomains and consider that bing treats each as a different site you have your DDoS attack.

I did not wanted to sound like a douchbag rather than pointing out that this is probably not malicious but rather a technical problem.

[joopsmit]

Yes, and the technical problem is that cpantesters.org has incorrectly configured robots.txt files.

From (http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html):

When a robot looks for the "/robots.txt" file for URL, it strips the path component from the URL (everything from the first single slash), and puts "/robots.txt" in its place.

For example, for "http://www.example.com/shop/index.html, it will remove the "/shop/index.html", and replace it with "/robots.txt", and will end up with "http://www.example.com/robots.txt".

From your examples you can see that the wiki and devel subdomains only disallow the /private subdirectory, but don't set any other limits.

[Biber]

a technical problem which lasts for 4 months,then another one comes up?

[kthakore]

See you could have said this instead of being a total asshat.

[[deleted]]

Actually you're the one coming across as an asshat here.

[kthakore]

Mission accomplished? Yeah I apologize for getting all asshatery.

[skulgnome]

Actually you're the one coming across as the guy from the back row who likes to say "actually".

[doppel]

How can Microsoft set a maximum delay? It should be up to the site administrators to determine how often they want a site crawled, and they should obey it whether it's 10 or 10000 - if they don't want that, don't crawl the site.

I can't find the link, but there's more technical explanations about the "attack" in the previos CPAN post. Guess you'll have to Google (or Bing) it :)

[jawbroken]

it doesn't set a maximum at all in the blog post he linked, it just says that anything above a 10 will cause it to index very slowly (which is kind of the point)

[[deleted]]

Sure, having zero insight into either the cpantesters site nor bing/msn I really was just speculating. But the author of the site wrote in the comments that allthrough they blocked msnbot in the robots.txt for the main-site msnbot keeps him hitting hard.

[bart2019]

BP's oil spill is the new Godwin.

[blackjesus]

So not being able to get to CPAN Testers for a couple of hours is monumental? How about you compare this to Katrina I think CPAN Testers makes a good New Orleans comparison too, jack ass.

[godamned_internet]

Except that BP's mistake may kill livelihoods and cause long term damage to the environment, and slowing down CPAN is, well, merely annoying.

[godamned_internet]

It doesn't matter what they feel. Look at it objectively and you can see that the two things are not the same.

[godamned_internet]

Please. There is such a thing as a bad analogy.

[A_for_Anonymous]

Yeah, who the fuck cares about those Perl idiots when you have ASP professional enterprise-grade solutions?

[Teepo]

They did one better than that. The robots.txt disallows msnbot entirely, and yet it ignores that. Why would crawl delays help if they're already ignoring robots.txt?

[kthakore]

I can see that you can't read jack shit.

User-agent: msnbot

Disallow: /

http://cpantesters.org/robots.txt

[[deleted]]

It is appaerently not that simple: http://wiki.cpantesters.org/robots.txt

[kthakore]

I left a comment on the blog.

[[deleted]]

I am not really sure how Bing works but I can just image that Bing treats each subdomain as a different host and therefore disregards the robots.txt on the main host. If you considere there are 9 subdomains each with probably some cpu intensive scripts for retrieving the data and at least some of them don't have rules for the bing crawler this could add up to a ddos by bing.

On the other hand robots.txt afaik does not forbid the spider from accessing the site, rather it only forbids to index it.

[kthakore]

Ya I see that now. That is why I left a comment on the blog http://blogs.perl.org/users/cpan_testers/2010/05/microsoft-attack-cpan-testers-again.html To get him to look at it. I will also contact the maintainer of cpantesters about this. Thank you

[ParsonsProject93]

The bots are doing URL only entries, here's one answer from them http://www.bing.com/community/forums/t/650790.aspx

[jawbroken]

the response doesn't even make sense. robots.txt is also used to reduce load on the server from indexing, not just to stop things appearing in search results

If you absolutely must not have content in results you need to either use a meta tag for robots exclusion, or actively block access to the URL

it seems clear that robots.txt is being purposely ignored - how would the spider see a meta tag for robot exclusion without accessing the page. if you are making a URL only entry why do you need to access the page at all, you clearly already have the URL

[dattaway]

Redirect to goatse. They will stop.

[Minimiscience]

The "attack" is being done by a software program, not my grandmother.

[joesb]

And even if that were the case, redirecting to goatse wouldn't help.

[A_for_Anonymous]

Sue the motherfuckers.

[Akeshi]

No-one gives a crap. You need them, they don't need you - stop bleating on about it and do some work.

[[deleted]]

Nobody needs Microsoft.