Re: Ominous spam
- From: "Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:21:09 GMT
On 28-Oct-2007, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Christopher J. Henrich <chenrich@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[massive snip (oh my goodness, what a double-entendre)]
Ouch!
Please keep in mind I live only a few miles from where Lorena Bobbit
did her thing.
[2] Does it not seem that, by now, everybody potential customer is
trying to sell to every other potential customer?
It's so cheap enough to send a million, or even a billion spams, it's
possible to make money even if only one person in a hundred million
responds. Not a lot of money, of course -- they could make far more
at McDonald's or Wal-Mart -- but there's always the idea that if only
they could send 100 times more spams, they'd get 100 times more money,
and that would be enough to make a decent living. And if they could
sent 10,000 times more spams they'd get 10,000 times more money, and
that would be enough to become wealthy.
Of course that's a pipe dream. There are few suckers, and if a sucker
gets 100 identical spams, they're not going to give money for *each*
of them. Besides, once it becomes practical for the spammer to send
100 times more spams, it's also practical for *other* spammers to send
100 times more spams, so response rates go down proportionately. If
there are only N fish in the sea, and fishermen are already catching
most of them, then if every fisherman gets a hundred times larger net,
that doesn't mean they'll all catch 100 times as many fish.
There are also fewer new people online, since by now pretty much
everyone with any interest in the Internet has already been online
for a few years.
It's worth noting that spammers could probably get higher response
rates by dropping messages randomly into the sea, hoping they'll be
seen by people in bathyscaphes as the messages sink to the bottom.
They don't do this only because it's much more expensive to drop
messages into the sea -- or even to print them on paper -- than to
send spams.
Well, some evidently made MONEY FAST!
As part of their case against Robert Soloway the feds are trying to collect
$773,000 that the allegedly made through spamming. When arrested he owned a
500-series Mercedes and lived in an expensive apartment, although he claimed
not to have any money..
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/317795_soloway31.html
And then there was Jeremy Jaynes who was said to be making $750,000 a month.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-14-spammer-trial_x.htm
And just hearing about rare cases like this is enough the encourage others
to try. Shoot, they probably figure that if people keep falling for the
Nigerian Scam, they oughta be able to find enough suckers for their spam..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/31/MNGSCOVGGI1.DTL
"The U.S. Secret Service pegs annual U.S. losses to the 419 scam -- both
through the Internet and regular mail solicitations of victims -- in the
range of "hundreds of millions of dollars."
"It is amazing the kind of people who fall for this," said Johannes Ullrich,
an Internet fraud expert with the Sans Institute in Bethesda, Md., a
computer and Internet security training organization. "It's not just the
bored retiree, but it's also professional people you would think who would
know better. The greed factor turns off their brains.""
--
The email fix is obvious.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ominous spam
- From: William December Starr
- Re: Ominous spam
- References:
- Ominous spam
- From: Marty Helgesen
- Re: Ominous spam
- From: William December Starr
- Re: Ominous spam
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Ominous spam
- Prev by Date: Re: Ominous spam
- Next by Date: Re: The Surgery - What Happened
- Previous by thread: Re: Ominous spam
- Next by thread: Re: Ominous spam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
