On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 06:53:45AM -0700, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > If you go here: > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/28/technology/28SPAM.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position= > it tells you about the cost of spam. > Mozilla's antispammer does the job fine for me. > The question nobody(?) seems to answer is why spam at > all: it has to be that doing it gets you money. > Can anybody answer that side of it? > The article only addresses the "bad" side but there's > got to be (10)1000's that answer spam and order > whatever they are selling... I think the reasoning is fairly straightforward, although it ain't easy to get exact numbers: The spammer's cost-per-recipient of sending a message is extremely low. As such, it takes very few sales to make that mailing pay for itself. Paul Graham mentions the figure of 15 in a million in this essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/wfks.html I have no idea how meaningful the actual number is, but it highlights the point that it does *not* take very many responses before the spammer turns a profit. Cheers! -- ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. > -ScruLoose- | Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards < > Please do not | for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. < > reply off-list. | < `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpVYWIm6ujkW.pgp
Description: PGP signature