"nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> billwg wrote:
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> > "Handover Phist" <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:slrneep31t.48o.jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >
>> > > I had always wondered if anyone actually bought from spam e-mail. I
>> > > guess someone would have to or the spam would have stopped by now...
>> >
>> > You can make money from spam in ways other than selling items:
>> >
>> > (*) You can sell lists of e-mail addresses to other spammers. How do you
>> > ensure that an e-mail is valid? Send spam to it, and if they reply, then you
>> > know it's valid. You're don't care if they actually buy the product you're
>> > advertising or not, as long as you can confirm the e-mail address works.
>> >
>> > (*) You can direct them to a site which will install malware on their
>> > computer, stealing personal information (which you can then sell) or credit
>> > card or bank info. Again, you don't care if they actually buy the product
>> > you're advertising.
>> >
>> > (*) You sell anti-spam tools. You want spam to become a bigger problem
>> > so that more people buy your tools.
>> >
>> This is a secondary source of value for spam, ignoring the notion of
>> phishing for security information, and that value is directly dependent
>> on the actual useful effect of the spam itself. If no one on the
>> planet ever responded favorably to a spam message, then the spammer
>> would have to shift to another means of creating commercial activity.
>> I think that this occurs naturally. Years ago, a lot of the spam was
>> from porno sites and that has abated, at least in my direct experience,
>> almost totally. For a while there was a lot of spam for the Viagra and
>> such medications and those have also abated. Most of what I see today
>> is for mortgage opportunities or purported insider stock information.
>> There is a significant push for mail order phamacies in Canada, too.
>>
>> I think that someone is continually rediscovering spam as a cheap way
>> to hit billions of people and then abandoning it after a trial because
>> of a lack of results. I personally think that there is a lot less spam
>> than there used to be, in spite of the "studies" that seem to come from
>> anti-spam software suppliers. My home ISP does a lot of filtering, I
>> think, and that cuts down on what shows up at my door.
>>
>> I filter out everything and only allow emails from places and people
>> that I have some ongoing relation with. I occasionally scan the junk
>> mail bin when I am expecting something from someone new, but I then add
>> them to my whitelist.
>
> What you say makes a lot of sense.
>
> Regarding the economics of spam, obviously it costs very little to send
> out spam, but it does cost *something*, if only for the email address,
> and the return must be high enough to support this. I have been
What email address cost? If you have a DSL account with unlimited
bandwidth its effectively free. Most spammers dont pay for address lists
either : its a common fallacy. They spider the web.
> wondering what the derivative is, the amount by which spam would
> decrease if the cost of sending it were to increase by some amount.
> If
Spammers invariably use other hosts : open smtp relays - it costs them
effectively nothing and then they dont get blacklisted either.
> spam were critically dependent on very low costs of delivery, then a
> small increase in the cost of doing buisness might have a large effect.
> For example, fewer zombie nets might double the cost of sending spam.
> With these thoughts in mind, I was surprised at the high figure of
> users who reply to spam---28%. It's discouraging, because it
> indicates
Take that figure with a pinch of salt. Theres a far lower return rate
from legitimate marketing drives - *far lower*.
> that the profit margins might be high, hence the derivative mentioned
> would be small.
>
28% reply rate would be excellent. And of course profit rates are
high. But the sum cost of sending out about a million spam emails is, if
done properly, effectively zero so the profit ratios dont even come into it.
--
|
|
