[Spambayes] RE: More "spam of the future" lately?

Tim Peters tim.one at comcast.net
Wed Dec 17 18:22:25 EST 2003

>> Spam goes thru fads, like everything else, and I *expect* this one to
>> self-destruct due to its own ineffectiveness at selling product. I
>> could be wrong, of course, but I'm probably not <wink>.

[Robert K. Coe]
> No, I suspect you probably are. The product a lot of them are
> selling isn't aimed at people who care whether the seller is
> literate or competent.

Nobody sends money to anyone without the expectation of getting something
back.  If the seller appears to be wholly disreputable, the only response
the seller can hope to get is from the desperately naive.  Sales is always a
percentage game, the naive who get fleeced aren't all identically naive, and
cutting response rate always hurts.

> You wouldn't buy anything from someone that lame, but you're not
> the target.  You're just an innocent bystander watching suckers get
> fleeced.

I understand that people respond to spam.  No problem, and so long as a spam
campaign turns a profit, it persists.  But spam campaigns-- unlike
commercials for Toyota and MacDonalds --*do* go away:  the ones that stop
bringing in more than they cost self-destruct naturally.  Putting random
crap in the initial sales message is akin to a real-life con man approaching
you with vomit dribbling down his chin and reeking of stale whiskey,
whispering that he's the CEO of a major company going incognito, and
offering to sell you a hot insider stock tip.  Some people will fall for it,
but not many.

As in any other field, successful spammers throw lots of crap at the wall
just to see what sticks.  Most campaigns are brief because they don't stick,
and I have yet to see a "let's target dribbling morons" campaign persist.
Well, OK, state lotteries do pretty well, but I doubt that seeing random
words from a dictionary carries an addictive thrill for anyone <wink>.

More information about the Spambayes mailing list