on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 06:53:45AM -0700, Hugo Vanwoerkom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
