Re: Q on NYT article on the cost of Spam

2003-08-02 Thread Michael D. Crawford
on Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 06:53:45AM -0700, Hugo Vanwoerkom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> 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? You have to realize how cheap spam is to send. In the direct mail b

Re: Q on NYT article on the cost of Spam

2003-08-02 Thread Karsten M. Self
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 ha

Re: Q on NYT article on the cost of Spam

2003-07-28 Thread ScruLoose
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 ans

Q on NYT article on the cost of Spam

2003-07-28 Thread Hugo Vanwoerkom
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 anyb