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.

use Perl

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Weekly Spam More | Login | Reply

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Cost-effective (Score:4, Interesting)

by petdance (2468)

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
- Re:Cost-effective (Score:3, Interesting)
  
  by chromatic (983) on 2003.06.27 12:06 (#21485) Homepage Journal
  
  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?
  
  Reply to This
  
  Parent
  - Re:Cost-effective (Score:1)
    
    by dug (2501)
    
    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.

Get More Comments

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.