Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Cost-effective (Score:4, Interesting)

    It's cost-effective because the costs are miniscule. Mail out 10 million spam, and if you only get 1 buy in a million, that's 10 buys. Ten purchases (or whatever) for a close-to-zero cost is cost-effective.
    --

    --
    xoa

    • That assumes that the spammers are actually the ones selling the products. That may be. That also may not be — it makes sense to me that the ones making money are the ones selling spamming services, and the people actually selling physical products are just being ripped off.

      That's just a hunch though. Does anyone know for sure?

      • The freep.com article (http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend22_20021122.htm) on Alan Ralsky states:

        Ralsky makes his money by charging the companies that hire him to send bulk e-mail a commission on sales.

        I have no idea how many repeat customers he gets, or what his customer satisfaction is like.

        Given the content and volume of spam in *my* inbox, I have to conclude that some people out there are dissapointed with their small, flacid penises that they got a bad mortgage rate on.