This is just wonderful!
A (spam) mail with the above subject line arrived at my inbox. It
appears that spammers have no more choice but to totally screw their own
message, in order to get around the baysian filters. I'm not sure what
the actual message is trying to sell. Something about the goo
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Then again, maybe not. For example - I'm confounded if I can understand
> why spammers will vigorously spam people who ask to be removed.
> Presumably, if someone asks to be removed, he is highly unlikely to ever
> buy something from you. Spamming him again will only co
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Then again, maybe not. For example - I'm confounded if I can understand
why spammers will vigorously spam people who ask to be removed.
Presumably, if someone asks to be removed, he is highly unlikely to ever
buy something from you. Spammi
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> How is that more valuable? The precise calculation should be something
> like this:
> a - The chances that an unconfirmed email reaches a real person.
> b - The chances that a random real person will actually buy stuff.
> c - The chances that someone w
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >
> >>Then again, maybe not. For example - I'm confounded if I can understand
> >>why spammers will vigorously spam people who ask to be removed.
> >>Presumably, if someone asks to be removed, he is highly unlikely to ever
> >>buy something from you. Sp
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "[OT]nesws regarding vigros chicks":
> Here goes - spam is so common because the return on investment for
> sending spam is so huge. You spend nickels sending millions of messages,
I think that the situation is many times differe
c: "Linux-IL mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]nesws regarding vigros chicks
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "[OT]nesws regarding
vigros chicks":
> > Here goes - spam is so common becaus
NH>> of 10,000,000 copies for $1000" and pays them. The spam provider
NH>> guarantees nothing beyond this - they do not guarantee any ROI.
Actually, from what I have read in Wired, some spamvertizers work for
sales percentage, and they make a good buck on it, from what they say.
NH>> Often, I bel
4 1:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Linux-IL mailing list
> Subject: Re: [OT]nesws regarding vigros chicks
>
>
> Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>
> >Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Then again, maybe not. For example - I'm confounde
On Friday 23 January 2004 14:11, Tzahi Fadida wrote:
> Well,
> what you are describing sounds great. if a business will get 0.5 - 1 % of
> the clients he sent SPAM than he will be very happy.
> The small precentage doesn't mean small money. No one sells gum by
> email ads, more likely computers, va
you are ignoring the most important thing:
no ones buy merchandise which was promoted with spam mail. at least most of us
don't.
Unless the need hits, a friend using windze deleted by hand his spam.
One day he ran out of ink for his printer, that day he didn't delete the
spam on printer ink and
DI>> no ones buy merchandise which was promoted with spam mail. at
DI>> least most of us don't.
No one works with Windows. At least most of us don't. ;)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken
Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells
phone +972-66-524945/\
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:56:57PM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> This is just wonderful!
>
An article in this line has appeared in NYTimes (reg req)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/weekinreview/25john.html?hp
--
Dan Kenigsberghttp://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~dankenICQ 1
13 matches
Mail list logo
