on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 06:53:45AM -0700, Hugo Vanwoerkom (hvw59601@yahoo.com) 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.
> 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?
One frequently posed hypothesis is that spam doesn't pay, but spamming
does. That is: it's not the advertisers who're making money, but the
folks who're tossing out 300m emails for $300-$1000 a pop. Much as it
was the blue-jeans vendors who profited from the California Gold Rush,
and, er, well, who got rich from dot-coms? Only winner I can see is
Microsoft. Hmm... _That_ explains something....
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Hollings: bought, paid for, but couldn't deliver the CBDTPA:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html
Attachment:
pgpPcu64K3p9n.pgp
Description: PGP signature